Sanger v. Upton’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 56 · 1875
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 28 district · 158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 356 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904), Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co. (1893)
70 federal appellate · 28 district · 158 state decisions — followed in 33 states
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 Sawyer v. Hoag · Adam Ogilvie v. The Knox Insurance Company Levi Sparks · Slee v. Bloom · Briggs v. Penniman
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 356 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The capital stock of an incorporated company is a fund set apart for the payment of its debts. It is a substitute for the personal liability which subsists in private copartnerships. * * * It is publicly pledged to those who- deal with the corporation, for their security. Unpaid stock is as much a part of this pledge, and as much a part of the assets of the company, as the cash which has been paid in upon it. Creditors have the same right to look to it as to anything else, and the same right to insist upon its payment as upon the payment of any other debt due to thé company.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It was competent for the court to order payment of the stock, as the directors under the instruction of a majority of the stockholders might, before the decree in bankruptcy, have done. The former is as effectual as the latter would have been. It may, perhaps, be well doubted whether the stockholders would have voluntarily imposed such a burden upon themselves. The law does not permit the rights of creditors to be subjected to such a test. It would be contrary to the plainest principles of reason and justice to make payment by the debtor for such a purpose in anywise dependent upon his own choice. A court of equity has often made and enforced the requisite order in such cases. The Bankrupt Court possessed the same power in the case in hand. The order rests upon a solid foundation of reason and authority.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It was not necessary that the stockholders should be before the court when it (the order) was made, any more than that they should have been there when the decree of bankruptcy was pronounced.” See, also, Howarth v. Lombard, 175 Mass. 570 , 577, 56 N. E. 888 , 49 L. R. A. 301 .”
2 later decisions 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.