Stewart v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
153 U.S. 456 · 1894
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 17 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2004 · most notably Ticonic Nat Bank v. Sprague (1938), Girard Trust Co. v. United States (1926)
34 federal appellate · 17 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 19 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Wright v. Blakeslee · Tillotson v. Preston
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general principle is, that where the principal subject of a claim is extinguished by the act of the plaintiff, or of the parties, all its incidents go with it. * * * This is •an action of debt on a bond to recover the interest, the principal having been paid by the defendant before the bringing of the action; by that payment, the bond was discharged, and by analogy to the eases referred to the plaintiff cannot recover the interest, whieh is but an incident to the principal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen he who has [the] right [to compel payment] commences an action for its enforcement, he at the same time acquires a subordinate right, incident to the relief which he may obtain, to demand and receive interest. If, however, the principal sum has been paid, so that, as to it, an action brought cannot be maintained, the opportunity to acquire a right to damages is lost.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No evidence was introduced to show the nature of the protest made, but it was unnecessary to prove more than that the payment was made under ‘protest’ which was admitted by the plea.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kahn v. Herold
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.