Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 U.S. 764 - Yeatman v. Savings Institution

Yeatman v. Savings Institution’s Empirical Analysis

95 U.S. 764 · 1877

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 27 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably York Manufacturing Company v. Arthur Cassell J B (1906), Frank Thompson v. Henry Fairbanks (1905)

27 federal appellate · 27 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 21 states

460187718801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Donaldson Assignee v. Farwell et al. · Gibson v. Warden

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

  1. ““Nor was it right to hold them [the certificates] impaired by its failure to appear in the bankruptcy court, or its refusal to prove its debt, in the customary form, against the state of the bankrupts. The only effect of such refusal was to lose the privilege of participating in such distribution of the estate as might be ordered by that court. It had the right to forego that advantage, and look for ultimate security wholly to the certificates which it held under a valid pledge. If the assignee regarded them as of greater value than the debt for which they had been pledged, or if the interest of the creditors required prompt action, he had authority, under the statute and the orders of the court, to tender performance of the contract of pledge, or to discharge the debt for which the certificates were held. He had the right, .perhaps, under the orders of the court, to sell them, sub ject to the claim of the defendant in error. If he desired a sale of them, and a distribution of the proceeds, or if he doubted the validity of the pledge, he could have instituted an action against the corporation in some court of competent jurisdiction in Louisiana, and thereby obtained a judicial determination of the rights of the parties. But none of these obvious modes of proceeding were adopted. The receiver and assignee seem to have acted throughout upon the theory that they had the right, immediately upon and by virtue of the adjudication in bankruptcy, to assume control of all property of ”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The established rule Is that [except In certain cases] the assignee takes the title subject to all the equities, liens, and incumbrances, whether created by operation of law or by act of the bankrupt, which exist against the property in the hands of the bankrupt.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘1. The assignee in bankruptcy takes the title to the bankrupt’s property, subject to all equities, liens or incumbrances which existed against the property in the hands of the bankrupt, whether created by oper-( ation of law or by act of the bankrupt, except such attachments and transfers as the law avoids. “ ‘2. Where a pledge of property was made in good faith by the bankrupt and for a valuable consideration, and not in violation of the provisions of the Bankrupt Law, the assignee cannot recover the property except by redeeming it.’ “The Supreme Court has adopted certain General Orders in Bankruptcy. General Order No. 28, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53, provides: Whenever it may be deemed for the benefit of an estate to redeem and discharge any mortgage or other pledge, or deposit or lien, upon any property, real or personal, or to relieve said property from any conditional contract, and to tender performance of the conditions thereof, * * * the trustee * * * may file his petition therefor; and thereupon the court shall appoint a suitable time and place for the hearing thereof, notice of which shall be given as the court shall direct, so that all creditors and other persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why an order should not be passed by the court upon the petition authorizing such act on the part of the trustee.’ “In relation to a similar statutory provision in the Bankruptcy Act of 1867 ( 14 Stat. 517 ), the United States Supreme Court sai”
    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.