Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 Sickels 376 - Mandeville v. . Avery

Mandeville v. . Avery’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
January 1993
most recently cited

15 district · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1993 · most notably Benedict v. Ratner (1925), Sexton v. Kessler & Co. (1912)

15 district · 49 state decisions

28018911900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Murtha v. . Curley · Dawley v. . Brown · Gardner v. . McEwen · Becker v. . Torrance · Stimson v. . Wrigley

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

  1. ““A chattel mortgage not accompanied by immediate delivery, or followed by an actual or continued change of possession, of the chattels mortgaged, and which was executed upon an agreement that the mortgagor may remain In possession and sell the property and use the avails in substantially the same manner as before the execution of the mortgage, is void as against the creditors of the mortgagor. The term ‘creditors’ includes all persons who were-such while the chattels remained in the possession of the mortgagor under the agreement, and their rights are not affected by the fact that they did not obtain judgment or a specific lien until after delivery of the property to the-mortgagee. The right of the creditor to collect his debt out of the mortgaged' chattels may not be defeated by the mortgagee, simply by selling the property. * * * A receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings under the Code-of Civil Procedure is vested with the legal title to all the personal property of the judgment debtor. He also represents the creditor under whose judgment he was appointed, and has the same right the creditor possesses to-prosecute actions to set aside all transfers of property made by the debtor to-defraud his creditors. The rights of the receiver in this respect are not confined to the property fraudulently assigned. He may follow the proceeds of the sale thereof in the possession of any person not a bona fide owner or holder.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““This finding has some evidence in its support, and hence we must treat it as conclusively established that the possession of the property covered by the mortgage was duly transferred to the mortgagee at the time of the execution of that instrument, and that he thereafter continued in possession,””
    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.