In re Hawkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Vatter-Lynn Millinery Company, of Louisville, Ky., filed with the referee in this case proof of claim, for $1,050.15. To the allowance of the claim the trustee has filed objections, the chief ground .of objection being that the note upon which the proof of claim is based was without a consideration, and that the giving of said note while the bankrupts were insolvent was a fraud on their creditors. The Vatter-Lynn Millinery Company originally had a debt against the Hawkins-King Millinery Company for $1,669.69. This debt was proved in the bankruptcy case of the Hawkins-King Millinery Company, and received its proportionate share on the composition carried through in1 that case. This reduced the debt to the sum of $1,050.15, which is now attempted to be proved against the Misses Hawkins, who also filed individual petitions in bankruptcy at the same time that the Hawkins-King Millinery Company went into bankruptcy.. Originally, the Vatter-Lynn Millinery Company had a claim, as stated, .against the Hawkins-King Millinery Company, of which the Misses Hawkins owned a controlling interest. In order to better secure the payment of this debt, the Misses Hawkins, on the 15th of September, 1916, gave a third security deed to the Vatter-Lynn Millinery Company upon real estate which they owned in Atlanta, and which was the only property that they owned. This note was attached to and was a part of the security deed. The security deed was held invalid by the bankruptcy court, and the Vat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hawkins