Hoffman & Co. v. Bank of Milwaukee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 19 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The decisive answer to that suggestion, as applied to the ease before the court, is that money paid, as in this case, by the acceptor of a bill of exchange, to the payee of the same, or to a subsequent indorsee, in discharge of his legal obligation as such, is not a payment by mistake, nor without consideration, unless it be shown that the instrument was fraudulent in its inception, or that the consideration was illegal, or that the facts and circumstances which impeach the transaction, as between the acceptor and the drawer, were known to the payee or subsequent indorsee at the time he became the holder of the instrument.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goetz v. Bank of Kansas City · American State Bank of Omaha v. Mueller Grain Co.

2. ““It is not perceived that the concession, if made, would benefit the plaintiff, as the bills of exchange are in the usual form, and contain no reference whatever to the bills of lading; and it is not pretended that the defendants had any knowledge or intimation that the bills of lading were not genuine.” And again: “Beyond doubt the bills of lading gave some credit to the bills of exchange beyond what was credited by the pecuniary standing of the parties to the same; but it is clear that they are not a part of those instruments, nor are they referred to, either in the body of the bills or in the acceptance, and they cannot be regarded in any more favorable light for the plaintiff’s than as collateral security accompanying the bills of exchange.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Grotrian

3. ““Such an instrument, as between the payee and the acceptor, imports a sufficient consideration, ' and in a suit by the former against the latter the defense of prior equities, as between the acceptor and the drawer, is not open unless it be shown that the payee, at the time he became the holder of the instrument, had knowledge of those facts and circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American State Bank of Omaha v. Mueller Grain Co.