Eliza Brown v. Frances Swann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 federal appellate · 21 district · 10 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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The great principles of equity, securing complete justice, should not be yielded to light inferences, or doubtful construction.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter v. Warner Holding Co. · Sims v. Sims

2. ““ The third section of the statute is in these words: ‘Any borrower of money or goods may exhibit a bill in chancery against the lenders, and compel them to discover on oath the money they really lent, and all bargains, contracts, or shifts which shall have passed between them relative to such loa», orthe repayment thereof, and the interest and consideration for the same.’ * * * The first question, then, to be considered is, can the bill of the complainants be brought within the operation of the section? Ve think not. Besides only making the contingent and prospective offer to pay the principal when the affairs of the intestate ‘ would admit of it, ’ which is altogether insufficient, as any other indefinite offer or acknowledgment of obligation to pay the principal would be, the bill is deficient in the material averment, essential to all such bills of discovery as this is, that the complainants are unable to prove the facts sought from the conscience of the defendant by other testimony; but, on the contrary, facts are stated in it from which a different presumption may be fairly raised. “When the legislature of Virginia passed the statute, it fixed the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to compel a discovery upon, oath from an interested party, in a suit either at law or in equity, and the rules which equity had prescribed to itself to enforce its jurisdiction in this regard. It knew the distinction between a bill for such discovery and other bills in”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rindskopf v. Platto

3. ““When the legislature of the state of Virginia passed the statute it fixed the extent of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to compel a discovery under oath from an interested party in a suit either at law or equity, and the rules which equity had prescribed to itself to enforce its jurisdiction in this regard. It knew the distinction between a bill for such discovery and other hills in chancery, which are also hills for discovery. One of the former is a hill for the discovery of facts alleged to exist only on the knowledge of a person a party to a private transaction with the person seeking the disclosure; in other words, it is a bill to discover facts which cannot he proved according to the existing forms of procedure at law. The jurisdiction of a court of equity in this regard rests upon the disability of courts of common law to obtain on to compel such testimony to be given. It has no other foundation; and whenever a discovery of .this kind is sought in equity, if it shall appear that the same facts can be obtained by the process of the courts of common law, it is an abuse of the powers of chancery to interfere. The courts of common law having full power to compel the attendance of witnesses, it follows that the aid of equity can alone he wanted for a discovery in those cases where there is no witness,. to prove what is sought from the conscience of an interested party. Courts of chancery have, then, established rules for the exercise of this jurisdiction, to keep it w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Brown