Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 353 - Benedict v. Ratner

Benedict v. Ratner’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 353 · 1925

Citation profile

378
cited by 378 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

166 federal appellate · 57 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 378 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2008 · most notably Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green (1946), McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co. (1945)

166 federal appellate · 57 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 12 states

1040192519301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. · Frank Thompson v. Henry Fairbanks · Sexton v. Kessler & Co. · Hiscock v. Varick Bank of New York

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

  1. ““But it is only where the unrestricted dominion over the proceeds is reserved to the mortgagor that the mortgage is void. This dominion is the differentiating and deciding element.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Under the law of New York a transfer of property as security which reserves to the transferor the right to dispose of the same, or to apply the proceeds thereof, for his own uses, is, as to creditors, fraudulent in law and void. This is true whether the right of disposition for the transferor’s use be reserved in the instrument or by agreement in pais, oral or written; whether the right of disposition reserved be unlimited in time or be expressly terminable by the happening of an event; whether the transfer cover all the property of the debtor or only a part; whether the right of disposition extends to all the property transferred or only to a part thereof; and whether the instrument of transfer be recorded or not. “ * * * the arrangement for the unfettered use by the company of the proceeds of the accounts precluded the effective creation of a lien and rendered the original assignment fraudulent in law. Consequently the payments * * * and the delivery of the * * * list of accounts were inoperative to perfect a lien in him, and were unlawful preferences. On this ground, and also because the payment was fraudulent under the law of the State, the trustee was entitled to recover the amount.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “upon the ground that such sale and application of proceeds is the normal and proper purpose of a chattel mortgage, and within the precise boundaries of its lawful operation and effect. It does no more than to substitute the mortgage as the agent of the mortgagee to do exactly what the latter had the right to do, and what it was his privilege and his duty to accomplish. It devotes, as it should, the mortgaged property to the payment of the mortgage debt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.