Pew Abic Min Co v. Mason Marcus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 32 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It may be stated generally that there is a measure of discretion in a court of equity, both as to the manner and conditions of such a sale, as well as to ordering or refusing a resale. The chancellor will always make such provisions for notice and other conditions as will in his judgment best protect the rights of all interested, and make the sale most profitable to all; and after a sale has once been made, he will, certainly before confirmation, see that no wrong has been accomplished in and by the manner in which it was conducted. Yet the purpose of the law is that the sale shall be final; and to insure reliance upon such sales, and induce biddings, it is essential that no sale be set aside for trifling reasons, or on account of matters which ought to have been attended to by the complaining party prior- thereto.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bidwell v. Huff · Michigan Trust Co. v. Cody

2. ““It is insisted by defendant that the plaintiffs were acting in the interest of the Quincy Mining Company, a corporation owning adjoining and rival mining property; that solely in its interest, and not for the benefit of the stockholders in flie Pewabic Mining Company, they carried on this litigation, secured the sale, bought at it, and, in final consummation of the wrong to their co-owners, have, since their purchase, conveyed the property to the Quincy Mining Company. There is a counter charge by the appellees that the majority of the stockholders who sought to convey the property to the new corporation, and who have been practically the adverse party in this litigation, and who may hereafter be considered as described by the defendant, were acting in the interest of the Franklin Mining Company, another corporation, also owning property adjacent to the Pewabic Mine. We are inclined to think there is truth in each allegation, and that it is not difficult to read between the lines that the minority of the stockholders were interested in the Quincy and the majority in the Franklin Company, and that these respective corporations were seeking to obtain possession and control of the Pewabic. But there was no wrong or fraud in this, and no deception. Bach party evidently knew the interests and relations of the other. In the answer originally filed by the defendant, in 1884, it was charged upon the plaintiffs that they were acting in the interest of a rival mining company.” Mining ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. Pewabic Min. Co.

3. ““Tlie English practice does not obtain in this country. A sale made by a special master, under tlie directions of a court of chancery, is not a sale made by either of tlie parlies to a litigation or under his direction. The master is a representative of the court, as a marshal or sheriff is in an action at law. lie is not under the control of either party. He is not the agent of either to make the sale. At such public judicial sale, either parly, as a rule, mav bid. Richards v. Holmes, 18 How. 143 ; Smith v. Black, 115 U. S. 308 , 6 Sup. Ct. 50 ; Allen v. Gillette, 127 U. S. 589 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1331 ; Smith v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 414, 420, Fed. Cas. No. 13,004. In that case Judge Story said: ‘In sales directed by the conrt of chancery, the whole business is transacted by a public officer, under the guidance and superintendence of the court itself. Even after the sale is made, it is not final until a report is made to the court, and it is approved and confirmed.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Deck v. Whitman