Huntley v. Kingman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ § 349. It is a general rule that stipulations in a mortgage of realty or personalty or in an instrument in the nature of a mortgage given by a failing debtor reserving to the grantor the surplus proceeds or the unsold property remaining after the payment of the debt or debts secured is but the expression of what the law would imply without a reservation, and does not vitiate the instrument. ‘ ‘ § 350. * * * gut a stipulation in an assignment of property securing an indebtedness, reserving the right to direct the application of surplus proceeds, is no more than the law implies in every transfer of property as a security for debts and does not render the instrument void.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ontario Bank v. Hurst · United States National Bank v. Embody

2. ““The tendency of courts in modern times has been not to hold instruments of this character to be fraudulent and void upon their face, unless they contain provisions plainly inconsistent with an honest purpose, or the instrument indicates with reasonable certainty that it was executed not to-secure bona fide creditors but to enable the debtor to continue to carry on his business under cover of another’s name.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Imperial Woolen Co. v. Longbottom · In re Kramer Mercantile Co.

3. ““Whatever may be the rule with regard to general assignments for the benefit of creditors, there can be no doubt that in eases of chattel mortgages (and the instrument in question, by whatever name it may be called, is in reality, a chattel mortgage) the reservation of a surplus to the mortgagor is only an expression of what the law would imply without a reservation, and is no evidence of a fraudulent intent. This was the ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York in Leitch v. Hollister, 4 N. Y. 211 [216], where the assignment was to the creditors themselves for the purpose of securing their demands. ‘A trust,’ said the court, ‘as to the surplus, results from the nature of the security, and is not the object, or one of the objects, of the assignment. Whether expressed in the instrument, or left to implication, is immaterial. The assignee does not acquire the entire legal or equitable interest in the property conveyed, subject to the trust, but a specific lien upon it. The residuary interest of the assignor may, according to its nature, or that of the property, be reached by execution, or by bill in equity.’ Cases in which reservations for the benefit of the assignor have been held to invalidate the assignment have usually been those where the reservation was either secret, or was upon its face detrimental to the interest of the creditors, and a practical fraud upon them. But, if the reservation be only of any surplus which may chance to remain after the debts are paid, it is ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Kramer Mercantile Co.