Bowen v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

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

1. ““The effect of the Revised Statutes of New York upon this trust is next to be considered. The chapter which contains the article on Uses and Trusts (1 R. S. 727) went into operation on the 1st of January, 1830. By this article all passive trusts were abolished, and the persons entitled to the actual possession of lands, and to the receipt of the rents and profits thereof, in law or in equity were to be deemed to have the legal estate therein to the same extent as their equitable estate; saying, however, the estates of trustees whose title was not merely nominal but was connected with some power of actual disposition or management in relation to the lands. Future trusts were allowed to be created to sell land for the benefit of creditors or to create charges thereon, or to receive the rents and profits and apply them to the use of any person for life or any shorter term. In construing these provisions the courts of New York have held that a trust to receive and pay over rents and profits is valid; but that a trust for the use and benefit of the beneficiary, not requiring any action or management on the part of the trustee, except, perhaps, to make conveyances at the direction and appointment of the beneficiaary is not a valid trust within the statute, but inures as a legal estate in the beneficiary. This, we think, is the general result of the cases. See Leggett v. Perkins, 2 N. Y., 297 ; Leggett v. Hunter, 19 N. Y. 454 ; Wood v. Mather, 38 Barb. 477 ; Anderson v. Mather, 44 N”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Elvins v. Seestedt

2. “In the present case there ... are really two distinct powers contained in one clause; and, according to the rules laid down by Mr. Sugden, the power to sell is the superior power, and will override the other power and supersede it, if previously exercised.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 32 Cal. App. 3d 862 - Estate of Wood