Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Bogdon’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.2d 54 · 1925
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably Bell v. Itek Leasing Corp. (1977), Western Contracting Corp. v. Commissioner (1959)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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.
Relationships
Relies on Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. · Bryant v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. · Turnbull v. Cole · A. H. Andrews & Co. v. Colorado Savings Bank · Corbett v. Riddle
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The final payment which is nominally the purchase price, is so small in comparison with the entire purchase price as to leave no real choice to the ‘lessee.’ The obvious purpose was to dispose of the machine under such conditions that when the ‘lessee’ had paid the ‘rental’ he could not afford to fail the relatively small final payment to obtain it. This would have been the obvious and natural, if not the inevitable, result. Evidently it was what the parties desired and intended to accomplish. * * * * * * “The whole instrument shows a careful, studied attempt to give it the form and appearance of a lease; but the obvious purpose and the natural effect thereof is to consummate a conditional sale. * * * ” 9 F.2d at 56 , 57”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statutes of Colorado (Session Laws 1917, c. 43, § 17) provide that no conveyance `of personal property intended by the parties to have the effect of a mortgage or lien upon such property' shall be valid against third persons unless possession be retained by the mortgagee or seller or the instrument be filed for record. * * * Therefore, if the instrument here involved is not a lease but is one having the effect of a mortgage or a lien, within the meaning of the state statute, it is void as against the trustee, because neither possession was retained nor retaken by the mortgagee nor was the instrument filed for record at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed and such possession came to the trustee. If the contract here is a conditional sale, then it had, under the Colorado decisions (which govern in this character of question [citing cases]) the effect of a mortgage or lien within the meaning of the above state statute (Turnbull v. Cole, 70 Colo. 364 , 201 P. 887 , 25 A.L.R. 1149 ; Coors v. Reagan, 44 Colo. 126 , 132 , 96 P. 966 ; Andrews v. Colo. Savings Bank, 20 Colo. 313 , 36 P. 902 , 46 Am. St. Rep. 291 ; George v. Tufts, 5 Colo. 162 ; also see Weber v. Diebold S. L. Co., 2 Colo. App. 68 , 29 P. 747 ). Therefore, the sole question presented by this petition to revise is whether this instrument was a lease or was a contract of conditional sale.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The lessee agrees that until the full payment of the said rent as aforesaid, the lessee will not injure, sell, dispose of, mortgage, relet, or in any wise incumber the said adding machines or remove same from Denver.”
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.