Richardson v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

156 federal appellate · 48 district · 103 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 412 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is objected to this view of the relation of customer and broker that the broker was not obliged to return the very stocks pledged, but might substitute other certificates for those received by him, and that this is inconsistent with ownership on the part of the customer, and shows a proprietary interest of the broker in the shares; but this contention loses sight of the-fact that the certificate of shares of stock is not the property itself — it is but the evidence of property in the shares. The certificate, as the term implies, but certifies the ownership of the property and rights in the corporation represented by the number of shares named. A certificate of the same number of shares, although printed upon different paper and bearing a different number, represents precisely the same kind and value of property as does another certificate for a like number of shares of stock in the same corporation. It is a misconception of the nature of the certificate to say that a return of a different certificate, or the right to substitute one certificate for another, is a material change in the property right held by the broker for the customer.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tuckerman v. Mearns · In re the Estate of Ellis

2. ““ The position of the broker is twofold. Upon the order of the customer he purchases shares of stock desired by him. This is a clear act of agency. To complete the purchase he advances from his own funds, for the benefit of the purchaser, ninety per cent of the purchase money. Quite as clearly he does not in this act as an agent, but assumes a new position. He also holds or carries the stock for the benefit of the purchaser until a sale is made by the order of the purchaser or upon his own action. In thus holding or carrying he stands also upon a different ground from that of a broker or agent whose office is simply to buy and sell. To advance money for the purchase, and to hold and carry stocks, is not the act of the broker as such. In doing so he enters upon a new duty, obtains other rights, and is subject to additional responsibilities. In my judgment the contract between the parties to this action was in spirit and effect, if not technically and in form, a contract of pledge.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Denton v. Gurnett & Co. · Provost v. United States

3. ““The broker acts in a threefold relation: First, in purchasing the stock ho is an agent; then in advancing money for the purchase he becomes a creditor; and, finally, in holding the stock to secure the advance made, he becomes a pledgee of it. It does not matter that the actual possession of the stock was never in the customer. The form of delivery of the stock to the customer, and a redelivery by him to the.broker, would have constituted a strict formal pledge. But this delivery and redelivery would leave the parties in precisely the same situation- they are in when, waiving this formality, the broker retains the certificates as security for advances.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tuckerman v. Mearns · Sargent v. Whitfield Company