Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 MD 72 - Kerr v. Urie

Kerr v. Urie’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
10
states following
March 1975
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 1975 · most notably Christopher v. Norvell (1906), Traylor v. Grafton (1975)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 states

180189719001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Keyser v. Hitz · N.Y. N.H.R.R. Co. v. . Schuyler · Swift v. Smith, Dixon & Co. · In the Matter of the Reciprocity Bank · Baltimore Retort & Fire Brick Co. v. Mali

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

  1. “The appellant, however, contended that admitting that Mrs. Urie was authorized to hold the stock beneficially she did not so hold it, but in fact held it as attorney, agent, trustee or in some representative capacity. But it is clear from the evidence that she either holds as self-appointed attorney or trustee for an infant of tender years; for an undisclosed principal, as appears by the certificate, or personally and beneficially, as appears by the stub of the stock book of the bank. In neither event do we think she can evade the personal liability of a stockholder. If persons were allowed to subscribe for stock in a national bank or in any other corporation where a personal liability attaches either as attorney for an unnamed principal, as self-appointed trustee for some unnamed cestui que trust or as attorney for an unnamed infant of tender years, and when called upon to pay the debts of the bank to the extent of the stock so subscribed, could escape by simply declaring that they represented in some capacity those who are legally or otherwise incapacitated, the law would be a dead letter, and the creditors of these associations which are found in great numbers in every state would be deprived of the only certain means provided by law for the payment of their claims.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Stockholders are those who appear on the hooks of the hank as owners of shares, and who are entitled to manage its affairs, and they can only throw off the liabilities incident to that relation by transferring the stock. Until this is done they continue to be stockholders, within the meaning of the [United States] banking act. * * * If creditors must look beyond the legal title as exhibited by the books of the bank, they can never know against whom to proceed.””
    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.