Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 NY 441 - Spraights v. . Hawley

Spraights v. . Hawley’s Empirical Analysis

1868

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
February 1956
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1956 · most notably Dows v. National Exchange Bank (1875), Wagner Trading Co. v. Battery Park National Bank (1920)

32 state decisions — followed in 14 states

1301868187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Everett v. Coffin · Anderson v. Nicholas

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

  1. ““The appellants contend upon some general idea that because the mortgagor had possession, and the defendants honestly believed they were owners, and in that belief, innocent of any wrongful intent, sold the property, and paid over the profits, it is not just that he should be held responsible. In other words, it is, as to the defendant, a hard case. Now, all this would be very well if it were true that mere possession of personal property was such evidence of ownership or of authority to dispose thereof that all persons were at liberty to assume such ownership or authority, and act in reliance thereon. Unfortunately for the appellants this is not so. Indeed, the cases in which possession imports such authority are very few, and the mere fact of possession, unaccompanied by other circumstances giving it a specific character indicative of authority, never does.””
    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.