Bartholow v. Bean’s Empirical Analysis
85 U.S. 635 · 1873
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1928 · most notably Swarts v. Fourth National Bank (1902), Swarts v. Siegel (1902)
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
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.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the indorser had paid the note, as he was legally bound to do, when it fell due, or at any time afterwards, and then received the amount of the bankrupt, it could certainly have been recovered of him.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Swarts v. Siegel · Kobusch v. Hand““It is very obvious that the statute intended, in pursuit of its policy of equal distribution, to exclude both the holder of the note and the surety or indorser from the right to receive payment from the insolvent bankrupt. It is forbidden. It is called a fraud upon the statute in one place and an evasion of it in another. It was made by the statute equally the duty of the holder of the note and of the indorser to refuse to receive such a payment. Under these circumstances, whatever might have been the right of the indorser, in the absence of the bankrupt law, to set up a tender by the debtor and a refusal of the note holder to receive payment, as a defense to a suit against him as indorser, no court of law or equity could sustain such a defense, while that law furnishes the paramount rule of conduct for all parties to the transaction; and when in obeying the mandates of that law the indorser is placed in no worse position than he was before, while by receiving the money the holder of the note makes himself liable to a judgment for the amount in favor of the bankrupt’s assignee, and loses his right to recover, either of the indorser or of the bankrupt’s estate.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.