Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 INDAPP 38 - Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. Lee

Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

1903

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
May 1931
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1931

7 state decisions

201903191019201930decided

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 Milburn v. Phillips · Dowell v. Talbot Paving Co. · Bonebrake v. Board of Commissioners · Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Williams · Duffy v. State ex rel. Rogers

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

  1. “It is a rule, to which there are no exceptions, that where there there is an adequate remedy at law equity will not interfere, and that extraordinary remedies cannot be invoked. * * * There is no averment in the complaint that Lee and Hardin, co-obligors with Sylvester St. Clair, were insolvent. There is no presumption of insolvency, and if they were solvent and able to pay appellant's debt, for which it sues, then its interests and rights were not jeopardized by the conveyances which it seeks to set aside as fraudulent. So far as it appears from the complaint and the evidence, appellant has an adequate and complete remedy at law to collect its judgment by execution. As a legal remedy exists against a part of the joint debtors, equity will not extend its relief as to another of such debtors. This is an elemental principle. This exact question was decided adversely to appellant's contention in the case of Eller v. Lacy, 137 Ind. 436 .”
    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.