Macy v. Roedenbeck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘'It is indispensable to the maintenance by a cestui que trust of a claim to preferential payment by .fan assignee or] receiver out of the proceeds of the estate of an insolvent that clear proof be made that the trust property or its proceeds went into a specific fund, or into a specific identified piece of property, which came to the hands of the receiver, and then the claim can be sustained to that fund or property only and only to the extent that the trust property or its proceeds went into it. It is not sufficient to prove that the trust property .or its proceeds went into the general assets of the insolvent estate and increased the amount and the value thereof which came to the hands of the receiver [citing many authorities].””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. Chicago, A. & N. Ry. Co. · Fiman v. South Dakota

2. ““That only so long as the trust property can be traced and followed into other property into which it has been converted does it remain subject to the trust””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zenor v. McFarlin · Conkling v. New York Life Ins. & Trust Co.

3. ““(1) It is indispensable to. tbe maintenance by a cestui que trust of a claim to preferential payment by a receiver out of tbe proceeds of tbe estate of an insolvent that clear proof be made that tbe trust property s or its proceeds went into a specific fund or into a specific identified piece of' property wbieb came to, tbe bands of tbe receiver, and then tbe claim can be sustained to that fund or property only and only to tbe extent that tbe trust property or its proceeds went into it. It is not sufficient to prove that tbe trust property or its proceeds went into tbe general assets of tbe insolvent estate and increased tbe amount and the value thereof which came to the hands of the receiver. * * * “(2) Proof that a trustee mingled trust funds with his own and made payments out of the common fund is a sufficient identification of the remainder of that fund coming to the hands of the receiver, not exceeding the smallest amount the fund contained subsequent to the commingling, * * * as trust property, because the legal presumption is that he regarded the law and neither paid out nor invested in other property the trust fund, but kept it sacred. * * * “(3) For the same reason the legal presumption is that promissory notes, bonds, and other property coming to the hands of the receiver were not procured by the use of, and are not, trust property. * * * “(4) Where a trustee has mingled in a common fund the moneys of many separate cestuis que trustent and then made payments out of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zenor v. McFarlin