Thomas v. Commonwealth Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““The question under immediate consideration is essentially the same as was before the Supreme Court in Christopher v. Norvell, 201 U.S. 216 , 26 S.Ct. 502 , 50 L.Ed. 732 , 5 Ann.Cas. 740. In that case the stockholder was a married woman, who, under the statutes of the state of her residence, was incapable of entering into a contract. As in the present case, it was there asserted by the defendant below that the relation of the shareholder to a national bank is wholly contractual in character, and that the inability of defendant to contract freed her from liability for her share of the assessment. The court held that the liability did not arise wholly out of contract, but was collateral and statutory, and that the defendant was subject to assessment. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U.S. 138 , 10 S.Ct. 290 , 33 L.Ed. 531 ; McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U.S. 154 , 25 S.Ct. 410 , 49 L.Ed. 702 , 3 Ann.Cas. 500; Thomas v. Matthiessen, 232 U.S. 221, 235 , 34 S.Ct. 312 [314], 58 L.Ed. 577 . “The purpose of the statute (section 64, supra) is manifest. Congress desired to protect creditors of national banks, and to strengthen such banks with the public by imposing upon them this liability of the shareholders as a safeguard. If certain stockholders are to be free from liability for reasons such as advanced in the instant case, the purpose of Congress would be seriously affected.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Slaughter v. Brown