Compton v. Jesup’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 11 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If it should be adjudged by this court that the decree rendered by the Supreme Court of the state of Ohio, in the suit brought by said James Compton against the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company and others, referred to in the pleadings herein, and the lien thereby declared and adjudicated in bis favor, continues in full force and effect, then The purchaser or purchasers at any sale or sales hereunder of that portion of the property sold, covered, and affected by said lien or the successors in the title of said purchaser or purchasers, shall pay to the said James Compton or his solicitors herein within 10 days after the entry of the decree herein in favor of said James Compton, the sum of $339,920.40, with interest from May 1. 1888, being the amount found due on the equipment bonds by him owned, by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in his said suit; ® * * and in default of such payment this court shall resume possession of the property covered and affected by the said lien of the defendant, James Compton, and enforce such decree as it may render herein in his favor by a resale of such property or otherwise as this court may direct.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adelbert College of Western Reserve University v. Wabash R.

2. “‘■.Necessity and comity both require that where, by its officers acting under color of its orders and processes, a court has taken into its custody property of any kind, another court, though of equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction, should not be permitted either to oust the possession of the first court, or in any way to interfere with its complete control and disposition of the property for the purpose of the cause in which its action has been invoked. This principle has been laid down by the supreme court of the United States in a long line of cases. Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400 ; Williams v. Benedict, 8 How. 107 ; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 ; Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256 ; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131 . 8 Sup. Ct. 379 ; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 181 , 13 Sup. Ct. 793 ; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608 , 13 Sup. Ct. 906 . In Riggs v. Johnson Co., 6 Wall. 196 , the court, speaking.of the state and federal courts, said: •The process issued by one court is as far beyond the reach of the oilier as if the lino of division between them was traced by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southern Loan & Trust Co. v. Benbow

3. ““The remedy of a junior incumbrancer, both before and after foreclosure, is to redeem the senior mortgage.- Without the consent of the prior mortgagee, a junior lienor could not enforce a sale of more than the mortgagor’s equity of redemption. If he " wished a sale free from the prior lien, and -the prior lienor will not consent, the decree should be that he redeem, and then foreclose for the enforcement of his own lien, and that he had redeemed. 2 Jones, Mortg. §§ 1394-1396,1431, 1439; 1580; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734 [ 24 L. Ed. 136 ]; Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U. S. 8 , 5 S. Ct. 6 [ 28 L. Ed. 615 ]; McKernan v. Neff, 43 Ind. 503 ; Spurgin v. Adamson, 62 Iowa, 661 , 18 N. W. 293 . A judicial foreclosure sale is not void because one interested in the equity of redemption, as a junior mortgagee, was not a party. ‘The sale vests the estate in the purchaser, subject to •redemption by the owner of the equity, or other person .interested in it, who was not a party to the proceedings. His only remedy, however, is to redeem’ ” — citing eases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Mulber Oil Co.