State v. Winslow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Briefly, the partial record presented tends to show that appellant had located certain cattle which he wanted to buy. He went to the bank, explained the situation, and borrowed $450 to buy these specific cattle. To secure the loan he gave the bank a mortgage on the cattle to be purchased, describing them. Appellant promptly purchased the cattle with the money borrowed, and later sold the property described in the chattel mortgage without the knowledge or consent of the mortgagee, and without making a payment on the mortgage. This transaction formed the basis of the prosecution. His sole point is that the property mortgaged ‘was not in existence’ at the time the mortgage was executed. We construe this contention to mean that appellant was not the owner of the property at the time the mortgage was given. His argument is that the mortgage was absolutely void, from which argument we presume he thinks it follows that he committed no offense when he later sold the property and kept the money. The point is not well taken. The mortgage was yalid as between the parties. (Miller v. Sooy, 120 Kan. 81 , 242 Pac. 140 .) It was a purchase-money mortgage and was a valid lien on the cattle as soon as they were purchased. (See Bank v. Venard, 109 Kan. 15, 18-19 , 197 Pac. 877 .) In 14 C. J. S. 627, the rule is stated as follows: ‘When a mortgage is given ... in contemplation of the immediate acquisition of the property, it cannot be said to be a mortgage of after-acquired property.’ ” (p. 47”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bankers Investment Co. v. Meeker