In re McFadgen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““If the landlords cannot claim priority out of the proceeds of the sale of the license, it becomes necessary for them to designate a particular fund out of which they claim priority. This they cannot do, for the reason that they .permitted the trustee to sell the lease, license, stock, and fixtures together, and thereby lost tbelr claim to priority of payment out of the fund realized, because ii could not be possible for them to claim priority out of any particular fund, when .everything was sold in built. This point was decided in Keyser v. Wessel, 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 126, 128 Fed. 281 , 62 C. C. A. 650 . No objection was made to the sale, nor is there any evidence how much the stock and fixtures brought separate from the license, or how much the lease brought separate from the whole. ® * * Under the facts thus stated by the referee and by the court, it seems to me that discussion is unnecessary, in cij'w of the decision by the Court of Appeals of this circuit in Keyser v. Wessel, 128 Fed. 281 , 62 C. C. A. 650 , 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 120, from which I am unable to distinguish ihe present controversy. Upon the authority of that case, therefore, the ruling of the learned referee, declining to sustain the claim of the landlords to priority, must be affirmed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McFarlin v. McFarlin