David Stacy v. J B Thrasher for the Use of William Sellers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 13 district · 37 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An administrator under grant of administration in one state stands in none of these relations to an administrator in another. Each is privy to the testator, and would be estopped by a judgment against him; but they have no privity with each other, in lawl or in estate. They receive their authority from different sovereignties, and over different property. The authority of each is paramount to the other. Each is accountable to the ordinary from whom he receives his authority. Nor does the one come by succession to the other into tlie trust of tho same property, incumbered by the same debts, as in the case of an administrator de bonis non, who may be truly said to have an official privity with his predecessor in the same trust, and therefore liable to the same duties.” 6 How. 59 , 60.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. Powers · Coram v. Ingersoll

2. ““ ‘The term privity denotes mutual succession or relationship to the same rights of property.’ Greenleaf on Ev. sec. 523. Privies are divided by Lord Coke into three classes—1st, privies in blood; 2d, privies in law; and 3d, privies by estate. The doctrine of estoppel, however, so far as it applies to persons falling under these denominations, applies to them under one and the same principle, namely, that a party claiming through another is estopped by that which estopped that other respecting the same subject matter. Thus, an heir who is privy in blood would be estopped by a verdict against his ancestor, through whom he claims. An executor or administrator, suing or sued as such, would be bound by a verdict against his testator or intestate, to whom he is privy in law. With-regard to privies in estate, a verdict against feoffer would estop feoffee, and lessor, the lessee, etc.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alling v. Brevda

3. “The administrator receives his authority from the ordinary, or other officer of the government where the goods of the intestate are situate. But coming into such possession by succession to the intestate, and encumbered with the duty to pay his debts, he is considered in law as in privity with him, and therefore bound or estopped by a judgment against him. Yet his representation of his intestate is a qualified one, and extends not beyond the assets of which the ordinary had jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. Powers