Spokane County v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “•Tu the federal courts it is the generally accepted rule that the irust. property must be clearly traced and shown to reside in the assets at the timo when they are being distributed. Illinois Trust, etc., Bank v. Smith (C. C.) 15 Fed. 858 , 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 275; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 693 , 10 Sup. Ct. 354 , 33 L. Ed. 696 ; San Diego County v. California Nat. Bank (C. C.) 52 Fed. 59 : Spokane County v. Clark (C. C.) 61 Fed. 538 ; Mulmomah County v. Oregon Nat. Bank (C. C.) 61 Fed. 912 ; Spokane County v. Spokane First Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 979 , 29 U. S. App. 707, 18 C. C. A. 81 ; Quin v. Earle (C. C.) 95 Fed. 728 ; Richardson v. New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co., 102 Fed. 730 , 42 C. C. A. 619 , 52 L. R. A. 67 ; In re Marsh (D. C.) 116 Fed. 396 ; In re Gaskill (D. C.) 130 Fed. 235 . fu Frelinghuysen v. Nugent (C. C.) 36 Fed. 229 , the rule was staled and applied in the following language; ‘Formerly the equitable right of following misapplied money or other property into the hands of the parties receiving it depended upon the ability of identifying it; the equity attaching only to the very property misapplied. The right was first extended to the proceeds of the propelty, namely, to that which was procured in placo of it by exchange, purchase, or sale. But if it became confuted with other property of the same kind, so as not to be distinguishable, without any fault on the part of the possessor, Hie equity was lost. Finally, however, it has been held as the better doctri”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lucas County v. Jamison

2. ““There the purchases were made with moneys that cannot be identified as belonging to the bank. The payments were all, so far as now appears, from tile general fund then in the possession and under the control of the firm. Some of the money of the bank may have gone into this fund, but it was not distinguishable from the rest. The mixture of the money of the bank with the money of the firm did not make the bank the owner of the whole. All the bank could, in any event, claim would be the right to draw out of the general mass of money, so long as it remained money, an amount equal to that which had been wrongfully taken from its own. possession and put there. Purchases made and1 paid for out of the general mass cannot be claimed by the bank, unless it is shown that its own moneys then in the fund were appropriated for that purpose. Nothing of the kind has been attempted here, and it has not even been shown that, when the property in this class was purchased. the firm had in its possession any of the moneys of the bank which could bo reclaimed in specie. To give a cestui que trust the benefit of purchases by his trustees, it must be satisfactorily shown that they were actually made with the trust funds.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of Com'rs v. Strawn