National Exchange Bank v. Wiley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 77 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In other words, the defendant Wiley could show collaterally that he was not legally before the court — as he was not in any just sense — if his appearance was entered and judgment confessed by one who had, in fact, at the time, no authority to do either; and, consequently, that the court was without jurisdiction to proceed except on legal notice to him or without his appearance in person or by an attorney authorized to represent him. If law and usage in Ohio were to the contrary, then, such law and usage would be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States; for it is thoroughly settled that a personal judgment against one not before the court by actual service of process, or who did not appear in person or by an authorized attorney, would be invalid as not being in conformity with due process of law.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nardi v. Poinsatte · Delray Beach Aviation Corp. v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.

2. “But we are of opinion that thai court had no authority or jurisdiction to render judgment against the obligors if the National Exchange Bank had in fact sold the note, and ceased, before the commencement of that suit, to own it or to be entitled to receive the proceeds to its own use. It was, in such case, in legal effect, a personal judgment without service of process upon the defendants, and without their appearance in person or by an authorized attorney. The proceedings were wanting in due process of law. The obligors never consented to judgment by confession in favor of one who was not the owner of the note or entitled to receive its proceeds, and the warrant of attorney cannot be held to have authorized such a confession.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Surety Co. of New York v. Baldwin

3. ““Holder is a general word, applied to any one in actual or constructive possession of the bill, and entitled at law to recover or receive its contents from the parties to it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mulert v. National Bank of Tarentum