Clews v. Jamieson’s Empirical Analysis
182 U.S. 461 · 1901
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 12 district · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 336 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Mertens v. Hewitt Associates (1993), Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co. (1909)
132 federal appellate · 12 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Oelrichs v. Spain · Irwin v. Williar · Bibb v. Allen · Cook v. Tullis
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 336 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is shown that the money deposited by Schwartz & Co. was deposited by them for and in behalf of the complainants, and Schwartz & Co. lay no claim to the fund, or any portion of it. Complainants demanded from the committee the payment of the whole fund to them on the ground that they were entitled to such payment by the terms of the trust, and because of the violation of the contract by Jamieson & Co., to secure which the latter deposited $7,000 of the fund in question. The committee has refused to pay over any portion of this fund to complainants, although it lays no claim to it, or any portion of it, on its own behalf. There is a dispute in regard to the right of the complainants to any portion of this fund, and a refusal on the part of the committee to pay it over to them. By reason of the facts, the committee occupied, from the time of the deposit of the funds, a fiduciary relation towards the parties depositing it, and it became a trustee of the fund, charged with the duty of seeing that it was applied in conformity with the provisions creating it.” 182 U. S. 479 , 21 Sup. Ct. 832 , 45 L. Ed. 1183 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The generally accepted doctrine in this country is, as stated by Mr. Benjamin, that a contract for the sale of goods to be delivered at a future day is valid, even though the seller-has not the goods, nor any other means of getting them than to go into the market and buy them; but such a contract is only valid when the parties really intend and agree that the goods are to be delivered by the seller and the price to be paid by the buyer; and, if under guise of such a contract, the real intent be merely to speculate in the rise or fall of prices, and the goods are not to be delivered, but one party ⅛ to pay to the other the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date fixed for executing the contract, then the whole transaction constitutes nothing more than a wager.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In order to invalidate a contract as a wager-ingi one, both parties must intend that instead of the delivery of the article there, shall be a mere payment of the difference between the contract and the market price.””
2 later decisions 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.