Wiles v. . Suydam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 60 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ The cause of action against the defendant as a stockholder consists of the debt and the liability created by statute against stockholders where the stock has not been paid in and a certificate of that fact recorded. In effect the statute in such a case withdraws the protection of the corporation from the stockholders, and regards them liable to the extent of the amount of their stock as copartners.. Corning v. McCullough, 1 N. Y. 47 . The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to establish a perfect cause of action against the defendant as a stockholder, primarily liable for the debts to the amount of his stock. “ The allegations against the defendant as trustee also constitute a distinct and perfect cause of action, but of an entirely different character. Here the liability is created by statute, and is in the nature of a penalty imposed for neglect of duty in not-filing a report showing the situation of the company. The object of the action is the same, viz.: the collection of a debt, but .the liability and the grounds of it are entirely distinct and unlike. That there are two causes of action in this complaint seems too clear to require much argument. The first cause of action against the defendant as a stockholder is an action on contract. The six years’ statute of limitation applies. 1 H. Y. supra. The defendant is entitled to contribution. But in .respect to the action against defendant as trustee, this court held, in Merchants' Bank v. Bliss, 35 N. Y. 412 , that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flash v. Conn · Huntington v. Attrill

2. ““This language is very general and very indefinite. I have-examined the various authorities upon this clause, and I am satisfied that it is impracticable to lay down a general rule-which will serve as an accurate guide for future cases. It is safer for courts to pass upon the question as each case is presented.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Emerson v. Nash · McArthur v. Moffet

3. “The causes of action are independent of each other; the `transactions' are different, and there is no legal affinity between them. The language of the last clause (the one we have been *Page 20 considering) is more applicable to equitable actions where the controversy is in respect to specific property, real or personal. It is difficult to define in this case the `subject of action.' The object of the action is to recover the debt; but is the debt the subject of action? In some sense it, perhaps, may be so regarded, while in another the subject of action may be regarded the penalty or forfeiture.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ader v. Blau