MacRae v. MacRae’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Murillo v. Hernandez (1955), Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp (1958)
4 federal appellate · 42 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.
Relationships
Relies on Brison v. Brison · Wright v. Young · Cashion v. Bank of Arizona · Kemp v. Kemp · 7 Cal. App. 634 - Chamberlain v. Chamberlain
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A constructive trust is one which does not arise by agreement or from the intention of the parties, but by operation of law, and fraud, actual or constructive, is an essential element thereto. Actual fraud is not always necessary, but such a trust will arise whenever [the circumstances under which the property was acquired make it inequitable that it should be retained by the one who holds the legal titleTj These trusts are also known as trusts ex maleficio or trusts ex delicto. Their form and varieties are practically without limit, as they are raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary under the particular circumstances of the case to prevent a failure of justice, but the element of fraud, either actual or implied, must always be present.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Honk v. Karlsson · Eckert v. Miller““The maxim ‘He who comes into equity must come Avith clean hands’ means ‘whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court Avill be shut against him in limine; the court Avill refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to aAvard him any remedy. ’ Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, 3d. Ed., par. 397. The very cause of the establishment of equity jurisdiction is that equity interposes only to enforce the re quirements of conscience and good faith in matters outside of the rules of law, or even in contradiction to those rules. To hold that equity only applies the maxim in question when the attempted fraud actually succeeds would in effect place a premium on fraud, for the debtor could say, ‘I may make the fraudulent conveyance without fear of loss if it proves in the end to have been unnecessary; the only case where I can possibly lose the property by refusal of my trustee to reconvey is when I would have lost it to a debtor otherwise. In one case I am sure to win; in the other it is merely a choice of to whom I will lose. ’ “After careful consideration of the cases cited and the reasoning contained therein, we are of the opinion that the fundamental requisite in determining in cases of this kind whether a party comes into court with clean hands is the moral intent, and not the actual injury”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Brimson““Under our view of the law, the transfer to Betts [by deed of Sept. 6,1922] is fraudulent on any theory, and both plaintiff and defendant were grantors therein. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MacRae v. Betts
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.