Gray v. Rollo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 12 district · 12 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The language of the Bankrupt Act, on the subject of set-off, is: ‘That in all cases of mutual debts or mutual credits between the parties, the account between them shall be stated, and one debt set-off against the other, and the balance only shall be allowed or paid.’ 14 Stat. at L., 526, sec. 20. It is clear that these claims are not mutual debts. They are not between the same parties. The notes exhibit a liability of the complainant and Gaylord; the policies, a claim of the complainant and his brother. But it is said that, by the law of Illinois, all joint obligations are made joint and several; and, therefore, that the complainant is separately liable on the notes, and could be sued separately upon them. Granting this to be so, the debts would still not be mutual. If sued alone on the notes, the claim on the policies which he might seek to set off pro tanto, against the notes, is a claim due not to him alone but to him and his brother. His brother’s consent that he might use the claim for that purpose would not alter the ease. Had his brother’s interest been assigned to him before the bankruptcy of the Company, and without any view to the advantage to be gained by the set-off, the case would be different. Nor does the case present one of mutual credit. There was no connection between the claims whatever, except the accidental one of the complainants being concerned in both. The Insurance Company, so far as appears, took the notes without any reference to the policies of i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dickinson v. Tunnicliffe

2. ““In Pennsylvania, it is true, set-off is allowed in cases where the claims are not mutual, and, in that State, under the decisions there, it is probable that set-off would be allowed in such a case as this. But we do not regard the rule adopted in Pennsylvania as in accord with the general rules of equity which govern cases of set-off.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 100 Ind. App. 16 - Wolcott, Receiver v. Pierre

3. “"Set-off is enforced in equity only where there arc mutual debts or mutual credits, or where there exists some equitable consideration or agreement between the parties which would render it unjust not to allow a set-off.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co. v. Kinsey Mfg. Co.