Jenkins v. National Surety Co.’s Empirical Analysis
277 U.S. 258 · 1928
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 14 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1993 · most notably Martin v. National Surety Co. (1937), Prudence Realization Corp. v. Geist (1942)
66 federal appellate · 14 district · 28 state decisions
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
reviewedNational Surety Co. v. Jenkins (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville · Keller v. Ashford · United States v. National Surety Co. · Hampton v. Phipps
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Wherever equitable principles are called in play, as they preeminently are in determining the rights and liabilities of sureties and in the distribution of insolvents’ estates, they likewise forbid the surety to secure by independent contract with the debtor indemnity at the expense of the creditor whose claim he has undertaken to secure.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If after paying that amount to the treasurer it may then compete with him in the distribution of the insolvent’s assets, the treasurer’s recovery on the balance of his claim is reduced accordingly and the benefit of the surety bond to the treasurer is diminished pro tanto. By the expedient of taking a separate indemnity agreement from the debtor the surety would be enabled to deprive the creditor of the full benefit of the security he had demanded. The established rule that the surety may not claim subrogation against an insolvent debtor until the creditor is paid in full is a recognition of the inconsistency of that position. The rule would go for naught if, by claiming indemnity instead of subrogation, the surety could achieve the same result.””
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.