Murray v. Lardner’s Empirical Analysis
69 U.S. 110 · 1864
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 4 district · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 238 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell (1882), Shaw v. Railroad Co. (1879)
78 federal appellate · 4 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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.
Relationships
Relies on Day v. Gallup
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 238 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Suspicion of defect of title or the knowledge of circumstances which would excite such suspicion in the mind of a prudent man, or gross negligence on the part of the taker, at the time of the transfer, will not defeat his title. That result can be produced only by bad faith on his part. * * * Such is the settled law of this court, and we feel no disposition to depart therefrom. The rule may perhaps be said to resolve itself into a question of honesty or dis-honesly. for guilty knowledge and willful ignorance alike involve the result of bad faith. They are the same in effect. Where there is fraud there can be no question.””
16 later decisions quote this exact passage““But it is a very different matter when it is proposed to impeach the title of a holder for value, by proof of any facts and circumstances outside of the instrument itself. He is then to be affected, if at all, by what has occurred between other parties, and he may well claim an exemption from any consequences flowing from their acts, unless it be first shown that he had knowledge of such facts and circumstances at the time the transfer was made. Nothing less than proof of knowledge of such facts and circumstances can meet the exigencies of such a defense; else the proposition as stated is not true, that a party who acquires commercial paper in the usual course of business, for value and without notice of any defect in the title, may hold it free of all equities between the antecedent parties to the instrument.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. Lowry“that the purchaser of coupon bonds, before due, without notice and in good faith, is unaffected by want of title in the seller, and that the burden of proof in respect-to notice and”
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.