Realty Holding Co. v. Donaldson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No District Court shall have cognizance of any suit (except upon foreign bills of exchange) to recover upon any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless sueh suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover upon said note or other chose in action if no assignment had been made.” Part paragraph 1, § 24, Judicial Code (section 991, par. 1, IJ. S. Comp. Stat. 1918).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estero Bay Estates, Inc. v. Giddens · Axel Johnson, Incorporated v. Carroll Carolina Oil Company, Incorporated

2. “defect may be cured by amendment and nothing is to be gained by sending the case back for that purpose,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Farm Credit Bank v. Hamakua Sugar Co., and Walter R. Schoettle · Blue Ridge Insurance v. Stanewich

3. ““Crown Orchard Co. v. Dennis, [4 Cir.], 229 F. 652 , 144 C.C.A. 62 , was a suit by the grantee of standing timber to enjoin the cutting and conversion of the timber— in effect, a suit to prevent waste. There was no attempt to enforce any contractual obligation; and the court very naturally held that the case did not fall within the exception in section 24 of the Judicial Code. It was expressly assumed by the court that if the suit had been to enforce a contract or for specific performance, the rule would have been otherwise. “The distinction is between a cause of action arising out of the ownership or possession of property transferred by the assignment of a contract — in which case the remedy accrues to the person who has the right of property or of possession at the time — and a suit to enforce the obligations of the assigned contract. Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. 622, 631 , 14 L.Ed. 1084 ; Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 U.S. 480 , 11 S.Ct. 173 , 34 L.Ed. 765 . The present suit falls within the latter class. It is brought, not to recover property or to redress an injury to property which appellant had acquired through an assignment of a lease, but to enforce contractual obligations of the lease.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 52 F. Supp. 116 - Le Mieux Bros. v. Tremont Lumber Co.