Kahn v. Weinlander’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 17 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In a contest between creditors of a debtor and his wife over property purchased in her name there must be clear proof that the purchase was made with her separate funds; otherwise the presumption is that it was through means furnished by her husband. Storrs v. Storrs, 23 Fla. 274 , 2 South, Rep. 368; Price v. Sanchez, 8 Fla. 136 ; Fairchild v. Knight, 18 Fla. 770 . In Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580 , it was held that purchases of real or personal property made during coverture by the wife of an insolvent debtor, are justly regarded with suspicion. She cannot prevail in con tests between his creditors and her involving their right to subject property so acquired to the payment of his debts, unless the presumption that it was not paid for out of her separate estate be overcome by affirmative proof, and according to the rule announced in this court she must be held' to full, clear and strict proof. The rule announced in Burt v. Timmons, 29 W. Va. 441 , 2 S. E. Rep. 780 , is that when a wife purchases land or other property the burden is upon her to prove distinctly that she paid for the land or other property with funds not furnished by her husband. Evidence that she purchased amounts to nothing, unless it is accompanied with clear and full proof that she paid for it with funds furnished by some one other than her husband. In the absence of such proof the presumption is that her husband furnished her with the means of payment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Burke, Et Ux.