Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 ILL 469 - Shaver v. Williams

Shaver v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1877

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
10
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2019

21 state decisions — followed in 10 states

50187718801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Campbell v. Carter · Curtis v. Root · Christie v. Hale

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

  1. ““The conveyance or release of all the rights held by the complainant in and to the premises to the mortgagor and the execution and delivery of a new mortgage were simultaneous acts, and no intent was shown to change the relative rights of the parties by the change of the form of the security for the debt. It is a principle well established that equity always looks to the substance, and not to the form, of the transaction, to determine its validity. Under this rule no good reason can be shown why appellant should have priority. When he made the loan and accepted a mortgage the record disclosed the fact that appellee had a prior lien. This record was constructive notice to him and all others of appellee’s rights, and whatever interest he acquired in the premises was subordinate to that held by appellee. Appellant has in no manner here been misled or deceived; and under such circumstances to give him priority of lien, from the fact alone that appellee canceled of record one mortgage, no portion of his debt having been paid, and at the same time accepted another mortgage deriving no substantial advantage which he did not previously have, would be neither just nor equitable.””
    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.