Harper v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 35 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In an action under the General Statutes of 1894 (chapter 76), to enforce the double liability of the stockholders of an insolvent corporation, the creditors are entitled to a judgment against each stockholder for the full amount of his statutory liability, even though the aggregate amount of this judgment exceeds the aggregate amount of all the corporate indebtedness and costs .and expenses of the action to be satisfied by such judgment.” “Where the aggregate amount of the judgment so exceeds the aggregate amount to be satisfied by the same, execution should not be issued against some or all of the stockholders for the full amount of the judgment against each, but the judgment should,' by its terms, provide for issuing successive executions on the order of the court, at first for each stockholder’s pro rata share of such indebtedness and expenses, and then for subsequent successive executions for such additional pro rata amounts or assessments as may be found necessary by reason of the failure to collect from stockholders found to be insolvent in attempting to satisfy the prior execution; and, when such indebtedness and expenses are paid in full, the balance of the judgment against those stockhold'ers paying their full share of the same shall be satisfied. Execution should be issued on the judgment accordingly.” “When a stockholder is also a creditor, it is proper to order judgment against him for the full amount of his statutory liability, the same as against other stockhol”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hale v. Hardon

2. ““We need not consider whether or not under these circumstances Jenks would, at the election of the creditors, be liable directly to them. * * * We are satisfied that in any event the creditors need not undertake to enforce-such liability against Jenks, or accept the benefit of any such attempted enforcement of the same by Hill. They are entitled to look solely to the liability of the persons who appear by the books to have been stockholders. However, under the circumstances, we see no objection to Hill retaining his present hold on Jenks for the purpose of compelling contribution by the latter in this action for any sum which the former may be compelled to pay on a judgment against him herein, after he has paid the same.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hamilton v. Loeb

3. ““The stockholder must pay all assessments on the judgment against him in full until so much is paid that the court is fully satisfied that the dividend coming to him on his claim as creditor will fully pay the balance that will be due from him on the further assessments on the judgment against him, when the court may order the collection of further assessments against him stayed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hamilton v. Simon