Jane Hitz v. John Story Jenks L W’s Empirical Analysis
185 U.S. 155 · 1902
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably William Austin v. State of Tennessee (1900), 268 F. Supp. 932 - Taylor v. SS Helen Lykes (1967)
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Barton v. Barbour · Covell v. Heyman · James L. v. Carryl · Wiswall v. Sampson · Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has been argued, that a sale of the premises on execution and purchase, occasioned no interference with the possession of the receiver, and hence no contempt of the authority of the court, and that the sale therefore, in such a case, should be upheld. But, conceding the proceedings did not disturb the possession of the receiver, the argument does not meet the objection. The property is a fund in court, to abide the event of the litigation, and to be applied to the payment of the judgment creditor, who has filed his bill to remove any impediments in the way of his execution. ... And, in order to effectuate this, the court must administer it independently of any rights acquired by third persons, pending the litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It has been argued, that a sale of the premises on execution and purchase, occasioned no interference with the possession of the receiver, and hence no contempt of the authority of the court, and that the sale therefore, in such a case should be upheld. But, conceding the proceedings did not disturb the possession of the receiver, the argument does not meet the objection. The property is a fund in court, to abide the event of the litigation, and to be applied in the payment of the judgment creditor, who has filed his bill to remove any impediments in the way of his execution. And, in order to effectuate this, the court must administer it independently of any rights acquired by third persons, pending the litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When a receiver has been appointed, his possession is that of the coürt, and any attempt to disturb it, without the leave of the court first obtained, will be a contempt on the part of the person making it. * * * And the individuals having such prior interest (in such property) must, if they desire to avail themeselves of them, apply to the court either for liberty to bring ejectment, or to be/examined pro interesse suo; and this, though their right to the possession is clear.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cohen v. Nixon
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.