Baldwin v. Canfield’s Empirical Analysis
1879
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently January 1997 · most notably Hill v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co. (1893), Button v. Hoffman (1884)
3 federal appellate · 53 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 McNeil v. . the Tenth National Bank · Grymes v. . Hone · Sherman v. Fitch · Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland & Washington Railroad · James v. Wilder
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Provisions of this kind are intended solely for the protection and benefit of the corporation. They do not incapacitate a shareholder from transferring his stock without any entry upon the corporation books. * * * Except as against the corporation, the owner and holder of shares of stock may as an incident of his right of property transfer the same as any other personal property of which he is owner. It appearing in this case that the certificates of stock (the evidence of title to the same) were delivered to the plaintiffs in pledge and as security for the payment of the notes and the return of the gas stock loaned; the court below was right in finding the plaintiffs to be bona fide holders of the shares represented by said certificates as collateral security.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hamilton v. Loeb““It is also contended by the defendant’s counsel that the plaintiffs have no standing in court, because a stockholder, as such, could not sustain an action of this kind. It is an answer to this to say that, as remarked by the counsel in another part of his brief, the plaintiffs, though they hold the stock, are not stockholders, but pledgees merely, and therefore they cannot exercise the control over the association which stockholders can. What the stockholders may compel the association to do, they cannot compel it to do. They cannot, therefore, be required to act through the association, but may bring an action on their own account, and in their own names, to protect their rights and interest as pledgees.””
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.