Parks v. Skipper’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2008
2 district · 7 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 Gilman v. Illinois and Mississippi Telegraph Company. Coykendall, Garnishee v. Idem · Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Parish · Merritt v. . Bartholick · Dickey, Tansley & Co. v. Pocomoke City National Bank · Hill v. . Beebe
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his ... is a suit to recover on the covenant to “pay the indebtedness” secured by the mortgage, and the mortgagee is not restricted to the exercise of the power of sale therein provided; any remedy at law or in equity for the collection of the debt is available to him and his personal representatives. As said in Wilhelm v. Lee, 2 Md. Ch. 322 : “The rule appears to be perfectly well settled, that a mortgagee may sue at the same time at law upon his bond or covenant, and in equity upon his mortgage; the case of a mortgage forming an exception to the general rule, that a party shall not be permitted to sue at law and here, at the same time, for the same debt. Indeed, the general rule itself applies only to cases where the demand at law and in equity are equally personal and not where the cumulative remedy is in personam, while the other remedy is upon the pledge. The remedy in this court, upon the mortgage, is in rem, and that at law in personam.” The mortgagee “may, in the words of the late Chancellor, (Bland,) ‘sue on all his remedies at the same time,’ ” though, of course, he can have but one satisfaction of his demand. Andrews v. Scotton, 2 Bland, 629 , 665, cited in Gilman v. I. & M. Tel. Co., 91 U.S. 603, 615 , 23 L.Ed. 405, 410 ; Condon v. Rice, 88 Md. 720 , 44 A. 169 ; Mizen v. Thomas, 156 Md. 313, 320 , 144 A. 479 ; 4 Kent, 183. It follows, therefore, that in the opinion of this court the mortgage and assignment offered in evidence is prima facie evidence of the defe”
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.