Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 F.2d 877 - Curtis v. Clarendon County

Curtis v. Clarendon County’s Empirical Analysis

31 F.2d 877 · 1929

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
2
states following
February 1987
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Blair v. City of Chicago · Holmes v. Goldsmith · United States Trask v. Wanamaker · Kirven v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. · Citizens Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Sexton

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

  1. “Neither the Bank of Manning nor the Columbia Bank ever held any cause of action against the defendant upon the notes in controversy. There never was a time when either of them could have maintained an action on the notes against the makers. Neither of them ever advanced any money on the notes, nor was either of them ever obligated to do so until the notes could be sold to some other person. They were not executed as evidence of an existing debt, but were executed in order that the payee might negotiate them for Clarendon County. *Page 119”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “because the evidence clearly shows that both the Manning and Columbia banks were acting as agents for defendant in handling the notes sued on, having no beneficial interest therein; the Bank of Manning being a mere nominal payee. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs are not the assignees of the cause of action of either of the banks, for neither of them had any cause of action to assign, but plaintiffs are the first beneficial holders of the notes, and the first who were in position to maintain an action upon them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No district Court shall have cognizance of any suit * * * to recover upon any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee * * * unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such Court to recover upon said note or other chose in action if no assignment had been made.”
    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.