Lapp v. Van Norman’s Empirical Analysis
19 F. 406 · 1884
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1914
1 federal appellate ·
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 James v. Mechanics' National Bank · Mather v. Nesbit
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is claimed that the property in the possession of the assignee is in custodia legis, and not subject to seizure by writ of attachment. I do not agree to this. The statute of Minnesota (March, 1881) did not validate all assignments purporting to be made in pursuance thereof, and forbid a judicial investigation; and while I concede that an attachment would not hold the property to satisfy a judgment against defendants unless the assignment is fraudulent and void against the plaintiff's, yet, under the law, the property is not in custodia legis, so as to exempt it from seizure. This instrument is the source of title in the assignee, and its execution is the voluntary act of the debtors, and not a proceeding instituted by law against them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is by virtue of this seizure that the marshal holds the property. On this statement of the facts I shall not decide on this motion who has the better title and right to the possession of the property taken. . . . The writ of attachment properly issued in this suit against the debtor, and if the marshal has seized the property which belonged to Bennett, he is certainly liable'in an action of trespass for the damages thereby sustained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Denny v. Bennett
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.