Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 CAL 81 - Matzen v. Shaeffer

Matzen v. Shaeffer’s Empirical Analysis

1884

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
8
states following
May 1939
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 1939

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

50188418901900191019201930decided

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.

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

  1. ““This presents a ease in which the interest of the appellant required that the lien of the mortgage which she paid off should be kept alive. Iier interest can only be fully protected by regarding the transaction in which she paid off the mortgage as an assignment of it to her, and the lien has been kept alive for her security and benefit. ‘In general, when any person having a subsequent interest in the premises, and who is therefore entitled to redeem, for the purpose of protecting such interest, and who is not the principal debtor primarily and absolutely liable for the mortgage debt, pays off the mortgage, he thereby becomes an equitable assignee thereof, and may keep alive and enforce the lien so far as may be necessary in equity for his own benefit; he is subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee to the extent necessary for his own equitable protection.’ 3 Pomeroy’s Eq. Juris. § 1212. And this equitable result follows, ‘even though a receipt was given speaking of the mortgage debt as being fully paid, and sometimes even though the mortgage itself was actually discharged and satisfied of record.’ 3 Pomeroy’s Eq. Juris. § 1211. If the respondent had purchased the premises while the satisfaction of the judgment of foreclosure remained of record, he doubtless would be protected. But the finding shows that he purchased the premises and received a certificate thereof, before any action to foreclose the mortgage had been commenced, and that he was made a party defendant, and ser”
    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.