Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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

1. ““In the absence of fraud tlie necessity for an assessment upon the capital stock cannot be made the subject of inquiry by the courts. As was said by Mr. Justice Field in Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U. S. 605 , 609 [ 20 L. Ed. 1186 ]: ‘As to the wisdom of an assessment, of its necessity at the time, or the motives which prompt it, the courts will not incluiré, if it be within the legitimate authority of the directors to levy it, and the objects for which the company was incorporated would justify the expenditure of the money to be raised. They will not examine into the affairs of a corporation to determine the expediency of jts action, or the motives for it, when the action itself is lawful.’ Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc., Railway Co., 12 Beav. 433. See, also, Cook on Stockholders, § 113; Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329 [ 16 Sup. Ct. 810 , 40 L. Ed. 986 ]. Whether such assessment could be impeached by showing that the corporation was not a bona fide enterprise, or had never actually engaged in business, or become a going concern, or that the assessment was made unnecessarily and in bad faith, or that a discrimination was made against foreign stockholders, it is unnecessary to determine, since no evidence to that effect was offered on behalf of the defendant. Certainly, under the cases above, cited, it. would be unnecessary in order to make a prima facie case to negative these facts. There is a presumption of good faith attaching as well to foreign as to domestic c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Car Trust Inv. Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co.

2. ““The trial proceeded under the third count of the declaration, which was in indebitatus assumpsit, and no objection was made to the evidence offered upon the ground of variance. Under such circumstances, and without expressing an opinion as to the admissibility of the evidence offered, the declaration is good after verdict. In Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall. 578 , 18 L. Ed. 791 , we held that variances between the allegation and proof must be taken when the evidence is offered, and if such evidence be sufficient to support the verdict the defect in the declaration is cured. Patrick v. Graham, 132 U. S. 627 , 10 Sup. Ct. 194 , 33 L. Ed. 460 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. A. Coolot Co. v. L. Kahner & Co.

3. “By subscribing to stock in a foreign corporation, defendant subjects itself to the laws of such foreign country in respect to the powers and obligations of such corporation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Voda v. Cordis Corp.