Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 CAL 437 - Spect v. Spect

Spect v. Spect’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
9
states following
December 1981
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 1981 · most notably Philpott v. Superior Court (1934), Faxon v. All Persons (1913)

7 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

2201891190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Kortright v. . Cady · Booth v. Hoskins · Grant v. Burr · Dutton v. Warschauer · Brinkman v. Jones

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

  1. ““Tlie right of the mortgagee to take possession of the mortgaged premises does not depend upon the statute. The mortgagor could at all times, even by a parol agreement, give to his mortgagee this additional security. Fogarty v. Sawyer, 17 Cal. 589 ; Edwards v. Wray, 11 Biss. 251 , 12 Fed. 42 . In taking such possession, the mortgagee does not thereby acquire any estate in the laud, or obtain for his mortgage any higher character, or any different or greater protection, than it would otherwise have possessed. In any action to enforce the mortgage, or to collect the debt for which it was given as security, the mortgagee has no additional rights by reason of the fact that he is in possession of the mortgaged premises with the consent of the mortgagor. “ Such possession does, however, give him rights in addition to those conferred by the mortgage. It is an additional security for the debt, which he is entitled to retain in accordance with the terms under which it was received. This right to retain the possession of the land is not coincident with a right to foreclose his mortgage, or dependent upon such riglit, but depends solely upon the existence of the debt. The possession of the land is a special security "for the debt, distinct and separate from tbe mortgage, which has been conferred by an act of the debtor, and the right to retain the same is independent of, and distinct from, any right springing from the mortgage.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.