In re Neff’s Empirical Analysis
157 F. 57 · 1907
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1938 · most notably Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n (1916), Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co. (1912)
7 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
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 Roehm v. Horst · United States v. Behan · Horace Dunbar v. Lottie E Dunbar · Lovell v. St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance · Carr v. Hamilton
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The lessee may bo evicted by title paramount or by acts of the lessor. The destruction or disrepair of the premises may, according to certain statutory provisions, justify the lessee in abandoning them. The lessee may quit the premises with the lessor’s consent. The lessee may assign his term with the approval of the lessor, so as to relieve himself from further obligation upon the lease. In all these cases the lessee is discharged from his covenant to pay rent. The time for payment never arrives. The rent never becomes due. It is not a case of debitum in prsesenti solvendum in futuro. On the contrary, the obligation upon the rent covenant is altogether contingent. * * It follows from these principles that rent accruing after the filing' of a petition in bankruptcy against the lessee is not provable against his bankrupt estate as ‘a fixed liability * * * absolutely owing at the time of the filing of the petition,’ within the meaning of section 03a (1) of the Bankruptcy Act of 180?. It is not a fixed liability, but is contingent in its nature. It is not absolutely owing at the time of the bankruptcy, but is a mere possible future demand. Both its existence and amount are contingent upon uncertain events. * * * Even under the Bankruptcy Acts of 1841 and 1867, which, unlike the present act, expressly permitted the proof of contingent demands, claims for unaecrued rent were not provable. * * * The present bankruptcy statute * * * does not provide for the proof of contingent clai”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“' “Bankruptcy is a complete disablement from performance and tlie equivalent of an out and out repudiation, subject only to the right of the trustee, at his election, to rehabilitate the contract by performance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““it is sufficient that a claim becomes provable as a consequence of bankruptcy. The right to sue for and recover damages then accrues.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.