Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

266 federal appellate · 59 district · 120 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 645 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While it is true language has been frequently used to the effect that the assets of a corporation are a trust fund held by a corporation for the benefit of creditors, this has not been to convey the idea that there is a direct and express trust attached to the property. As said in 2 Pom.Eq. Jur. § 1046, they ‘are not in any true and complete sense trusts, and can only be called so by way of analogy or metaphor.’ “To the same effect are decisions of this court. ■ The case of Graham v. [La Crosse & M.] Railroad Company, 102 U.S. 148 [ 26 L.Ed. 106 ], was an action by a subsequent creditor to subject certain property, alleged to have been wrongfully conveyed by the corporation debtor, to the satisfaction of his judgment. And the very proposition here presented was then considered, and in respect to it, the court, by Mr. Justice Bradley, said (page 160): ‘It is contended, however, by the appellant that a corporation debtor does not stand on the same footing as an individual debtor; that, whilst the latter has supreme dominion over his own property, a corporation is a mere trustee, holding its property for the benefit of its stockholders and creditors; and that if it fail to pursue its rights against third persons, whether arising out of fraud or otherwise, it is a breach of trust, and creditors may come into equity to compel an enforcement of the corporate duty. This, as we understand, is the substance of the position taken. “ ‘We do not concur in this view. It is at war with th”

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McDonald v. Williams · Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Becker

2. ““ ‘The plaintiffs were simple contract creditors of the company. Their claims had not been reduced to judgment, and they had no express lien upon mortgage, trust deed, or otherwise. It is the settled law of this court that such creditors cannot come into a court of equity to obtain the seizure of the property of their debtor, and its application to the satisfaction of their claims.’ ””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Viquesney v. Allen · Davis v. Hayden

3. ““ * * * If the objection of want of jurisdiction in equity is not taken in proper time, namely, before the defendant enters into his defense at large, the court having the general jurisdiction will exercise it; and in a note [in 1 Dan. Ch. Prac. (4th Am. Ed.) p. 550] many cases are cited to establish that, ‘if a' defendant in a suit in equity answers and submits to the jurisdiction of the court, it is too late for him to object that the plaintiff had a.plain and adequate remedy at law. This objection should be taken at the earliest opportunity;’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cincinnati Equipment Co. v. Degnan · Peale v. Marian Coal Co.