Finley v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 1957 · most notably 41 Tenn. App. 572 - Hall v. De Saussure (1956), Kentucky Title Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Dunavan (1924)
28 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.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is quite usual to pledge collateral as security for the payment of a negotiable note, and we do not think that any narrow construction of the law should be adopted that would have the effect of impairing the value of this kind of security, or that would deny to the holder the right to insist that, if the value of the collateral deposit should become impaired, the maker must strengthen it or else precipitate the maturity of the paper. This condition in the note is merely supplementary to the fixed and controlling promises, and is really nothing more than additional security for the payment of the instrument. It is not, strictly speaking, ‘an order or promise to do an act in addition to the payment of money,’ but is rather an order or promise to do an act that will better secure'the promise to pay the money stipulated at the time fixed in the note. If this condition or promise would disturb the/ negotiability of commercial" paper, the effect would necessarily be to lessen the value of collateral, as security, because holders of paper would not be disposed to accept collateral, much of which has a fluctuating value, if they were denied the right to insist that its value should be maintained in an amount sufficient to serve the purpose for which it was accepted.” Finley v. Smith, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The signature of any party may be made by a duly authorized agent. No particular form' of appointment is necessary for this purpose; and the authority of the agent may be established as in other cases of agency.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State Bank v. Weeks
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.