Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 F.1d 490 - In re Harralson

In re Harralson’s Empirical Analysis

179 F. 490 · 1910

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
April 2004
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 12 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2004 · most notably Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford (1935), Van Huffel v. Harkelrode (1931)

17 federal appellate · 12 district ·

1101910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Smith v. Township of Au Gres · Mills v. Virginia-Carolina Lumber Co. · In re Waterloo Organ Co. · In re Saxton Furnace Co. · In re Anders Push Button Telephone Co.

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

  1. ““A court of bankruptcy should not assume charge of incumbered property and liquidate the liens on it, unless there are reasonable grounds for believing some advantage will accrue to the bankrupt’s estate. If the validity of the liens is unquestioned, and their amount is such that there is probably no excess of value in the property, it should be surrendered to the lienholders, or others entitled, unless some other reason appears for retaining control. A court of bankruptcy is not a court of general jurisdiction for the adjudication of controversies or the administration of assets in which the bankrupt’s estate is in no wise interested. If, however, cognizance is taken, it should be assumed some benefit or advantage was expected to accrue to the general creditors ; and if it results otherwise it is equitable to make the general estate bear the cost of the proceeding. Here the proceeds of sale did not equal the admitted encumbrance, and the deficiency should not be further increased by deducting the commissions of the officers, if there is a general estate against which they can be charged. This is in analogy to the general practice in equity in foreclosure.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There appears to have heen other property out oí the proceeds of which the costs and expenses of the bankruptcy proceeding could he met; hut, whether this was the case or not, the secured creditor was entitled to the entire proceeds of the property upon which it had a lien until its debt was fully satisfied, and no part of such proceeds could he properly withheld from it to pay commissions of the trustee and referee or other costs of the bankruptcy administration.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.