Cunningham v. Davidoff’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2014
2 federal appellate · 21 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 Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Insurance · Demuth v. Old Town Bank · Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Smith · House v. . Carr · Burns v. Hiatt
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, while it has long been established that a suit to foreclose a mortgage may be barred either by presumption of payment or by a statute of limitations, it is also well settled that when a mortgagor seeks affimative relief in a suit to quiet title, the sole allegation that the mortgage is barred by limitations is not sufficient. The presumption of payment or a statute of limitations may be used as a shield, but not as a sword. Equity- considers that the moral obligation to pay a just debt continues after the lapse of the limitation period. The maxim, 'He who seeks equity must do equity,’ applies in such case with full effect. A mortgagor who comes into a court of equity asking for cancellation of a lien upon his property will be required to respect the maxim regardless of a statute of limitations. So, where the only ground advanced by a mortgagor for relief is that the mortgage is barred by limitations, the court will not interpose its aid. [Citing cases.] Accordingly, in Cacy v. Slay, 127 Md. 493, 498 , 96 A. 690 , 1 A.L.R. 764 , Chief Judge Boyd stated that when a mortgagor comes into a court of equity to compel release of the mortgage, ‘he must not only allege * * * but must prove that the mortgage has been paid, or at least that he is entitled to have it released by those he proceeds against.’ “However, the court will not apply the maxim where there is no moral obligation on the mortgagor or his successor in interest to pay the debt which the mortgage was given to ”
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.