Quin v. Earle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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

1. ““AVith regard to personal property other than money, the cpiestion of identification is generally easy of determination. Not so of money, and perhaps some personal property other than money. If these be confused in the mass of exactly similar things, specific identification becomes impossible. But the more modem doctrine has conic to be that, where the fraudulent depositary so mingles goods which he has obtained by fraud with the mass of like goods of his own, the whole may be seized, or considered as held in trust, until equitable separation of the property of the defrauded party is made. So, advancing one step further, where money thus obtained has gone to swell the aggregate in the possession of the fraudulent party, it may, under proper proceedings, be segregated in amount from such aggregate sum, and made the subject of a trust, in order to accomplish the ends of justice. If my bushel of corn be obtained from me by fraud, and be poured into the mass of similar grain in the bin of the party committing the fraud, justice is sat isfied, and no one can be wronged, by my having restored to me a bushel of the same grain out of the bin, though the identical grains obtained from me are not restored. If, on the other hand, the funds in possession of the defrauding bank be not increased by the property or the money so obtained, so that the aggregate amount of assets for distribution among the general creditors is not made larger by reason of the plaintiff’s contribution thereto, t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co.

2. ““If the president and officers' of the bank knew or believed that the bank was hopelessly and irretrievably insolvent at the time of receiving the deposit of the complainant, then a fraud was undoubtedly committed by the hank upon the complainant, for which there should be a remedy. But fraud must be proved, and is not to be presumed, and the burden- of proof is on the complainant. The mere fact that the bank was in an embarrassed condition, by reason of the large indebtedness to it from its president, is not sufficient of itself to establish the fraud alleged in this case. A trader, whether a corporation or an individual, may be struggling in the straits of financial embarrassment, but with an honest hope of weathering the financial storm and of being eventually solvent. Property received by such an individual or concern in the ordinary course of busi- ■ ness during the period of such embarrassment becomes honestly theirs, and the fact that their expectations were unrealized, and their hopes not well founded, would not fasten upon them a fraud that would vitiate their business transactions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scharnberg v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Spencer