Horton v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1875
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 1935 · most notably Wilson v. Voight (1886), Wallach v. Wylie (1882)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 state decisions
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 Smith & Hoe v. Acker · Wood v. Lowry · Russell v. . Winne · Gardner v. . McEwen · Edgell v. . Hart
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘A mortgage of chattels, coupled with an agreement that the mortgagor may retain possession of the mortgaged property, and sell or dispose of it as his own, without satisfaction of the mortgage debt, is of no effect as a security, and can only operate to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of the mortgagor and subsequent purchasers and mortgagees. In the early ease of Chophard v. Bayard, 4 Minn. 533 (Gil. 418), it was held by this court, in accordance with sound principle and the weight of authority, that such a mortgage was necessarily fraudulent as against the mortgagor’s creditors. And see Edgell v. Hart, 9 N. Y. 213 , 59 Am. Dec. 532 ; Place v. Dangworthy, 13 Wis. 629 , 80 Am. Dec. 758 ; Steinat v. Deuster, 23 Wis. 136 ; Collins v. Myers, 16 Ohio, 547 ; Freeman v. Rawson, 5 Ohio St. 1 ; Bank v. Hunt, 11 Wall. 391 , 20 L. Ed. 190 . If the intent that the mortgagor may retain possession of the goods, and dispose of them as owner, is apparent in the mortgage itself, the existence of such intent is to be determined by the court, otherwise the existence of the intent is a question for the jury upon the evidence; but in every case, if the intent is found to exist, the law declares the mortgage to be fraudulent. Gere v. Murphy, 6 Minn. 305 (Gil. 213); Gardner v. McEwen, 19 N. Y. 123 ; Russell v. Winne, 37 N. Y. 591 , 97 Am. Dec. 755 , and cases supra. The conduct of the parties in dealing with the mortgaged property 'may, however, furnish evidence, in some eases amounting ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.