4 E.H. Smith 59 - Cheever v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 8 district · 67 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““He is not bound at his peril to be on the alert for circumstances wMeh might possibly excite the suspicion, of wary vigilance; he does not owe to the party who puts the paper afloat the duty of active inquiry in order to avert the imputation of bad faith. The rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by a speculative issue as to his diligence or negligence. The holder’s rights cannot be defeated without proof of actual notice of the defect in title or bad faith on Ms part evidenced by circumstances. Though, he may have been negligent in taking the paper, and omitted precautions which a prudent man would have taken, nevertheless, unless he acted mala fide, his title, according to settled doctrine, will prevail.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Troy & Cohoes Shirt Co. · Mack v. Dailey

2. ““The name of the party who presented it and had it in his possession appeared on the face of the paper to have signed it as president. The name of another officer of the corporation was upon it also, attesting its regularity, and everything was in his handwriting, except the signature of the president and the indorsement of the payee. So far as Brooks [the lender] was concerned, the paper showed that it had been issued to a stranger in the regular course of business; and through his indorsement, had come to the hands of a mercantile firm of which the president of the corporation was a member. If this were the fact, there is no doubt as to his right to use it in the business of the firm. The holder of a note, who has no actual knowledge or notice of a defect in the title, or other equities between the parties, when circumstances come to his knowledge sufficient to put him upon inquiry, is chargeable with knowledge of all the facts that such inquiry would have revealed. The difficulty in this case is to find the circumstance which can be said to be sufficient to put Brooks upon the inquiry. There was absolutely nothing on the face of the paper, except the signature, as president, of the party who was dealing with it, and that, we think, was not sufficient in view of the fact that the appearances were that he was a purchaser from a third party. The principle that applies in a case where an officer of a corporation makes the corporate obligation payable to himself, and then attem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National City Bank v. Shelton Electric Co.

3. “the rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by a speculative issue as to his diligence or negligence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sherwood Distilling Co. v. Peoples First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.