Veeder v. . Mudgett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 25 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The attempted increase was therefore illegal, but the respondent insists that nevertheless, as against the creditors of the company, the defendant stockholders, by accepting their proportion of the increased stock by voting for its increase by taking dividends upon it, and holding it out to those dealing with the company as an actual component of its capital, are estopped from ■denying the legal validity of the increase, and must be held responsible, as if it was valid. The authorities for this doctrine are numerous and strong. Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y 119 ; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 ; Aspinwall v. Saochi, 57 N. Y. 331 ; Railroad Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75 ; Kent v. Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 159 ; Sheldon H. B. Co. v. Eickemeyer H. B. M. Co., 90 N. Y. 613 . The answer made to them is that an act absolutely and wholly void, because under the law incapable of being performed, cannot be made valid by estoppel. This is true where under the law there is an entire lack of power to do the act which is brought in question. The distinction is well illustrated in Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 . Under the law of Kansas, no company like that then before the court could increase its capital to more than double an amount originally authorized. The capital was sought to be increased in excess of that amount. As against creditors, it was claimed to be a valid increase, by the operation of an estoppel, but the’court ruled otherwise,.and justly; for the very foundation of an estoppel, the m”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stutz v. Handley

2. “So far as tlie stock was issued for property bought of Whitney and French, no question is here raised, but as to Jones it is said the turn made of the debt due to him from the company for work in constructing its furnaces was not a payment of money upon the capital stock within the meaning of section 14 of the act of 1848. If the company had paid the money to Jones in discharge of the debt due him, and then Jones had handed back the same money as a payment upon his stock, no question could have arisen. Precisely that was the substance of the transaction, although the form of passing the money was omitted. We think the payment was sufficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Markle v. Commissioner