Nickerson v. Hollet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The primary and controlling question is one of fact. It is admitted that there was no written or legal assignment of the claim to the appellants, but it is contended that the facts warrant a holding that there was an equitable assignment. “The law as to what constitutes an equitable assignment is not in doubt, and is well stated as follows: “ ‘In order to work an equitable assignment there must be an absolute appropriation by the assignor of the debt or fund sought to be assigned to the use of the assignee. The intention of the assignor must be to transfer a present interest in the debt or fund or subject matter; if this is done the transaction is an assignment; otherwise not.’ 5 C. J. 909. “ ‘The assignor of a chose in action must part with the power of control over the thing assigned; if he retains control it is fatal to the claim of the assignee.’ 5 O. J. 912. “See, also, Hossack v. Graham, 20 Wash. 184 , 55 Pac. 36 . “While the evidence is not free from conflict, yet it rather clearly appears that the assignor did not part with control over the account in question, and that the assignees did not even assume to exercise control over it until after the written assignment had been made to the bank, and that no present interest passed to them. The trial court so found, and further found that there was here nothing more than an expressed intention to pay out of a particular fund.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sneesby v. Livington · Philip v. City of Seattle