In re Ells’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 13 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The contract was one of indemnity for loss of rent and other payments, “and would be broken only after, and so far as, rent had been lost and payments had been made. * * * At the time of the adjudication the'claim in this case was contingent, first, upon the determination of the lease by the lessor for breach of the covenant; and, second, upon a subsequent loss of rent by the lessor. If the lessor permitted the lease to continue, or if the rent subsequently obtained by him equalled or exceeded that provided in the lease, the claim would not arise. * * * The provisions of the act of 1898 concerning the proof and allowance of contingent claims differ materially from those contained in the acts of 1841 and 1867. * * * Even under the broad provisions of the act of 1867 above referred to, it was held- that a provision in a lease that the lessors might re-enter and relet the premises at the risk of the lessees, who should remain liable for the rent, and be credited with the sums actually realized, did not give rise to a provable contingent claim. Ex parte Lake, 2 Low. 544 , Fed. Oas. No. 7,991. The provision above quoted of- the lease here in question, though not identical with that in Ex parte Lake, yet resembles it so closely as to be essentially similar. If the contingent claim arising in Ex parte Lake could not be proved under the act of 1867, it is clear that the contingent claim arising in this ease cannot be proved under the act of 1898.’.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Roth & Appel

2. ““I can find nothing in the act of 1898 to produce a result different from that of the act of 18(¡7. Had there been no clause giving the lessor the right to re-enter, the trustee in bankruptcy would have had a reasonable time to elect whether to assume or to refuse the lease. If he had assumed it, the bankruptcy would have operated like any other assignment, and would have released the bankrupt from all liability, except upon those of his covenants not already broken which would have remained binding upon him after any other assignment. If the trustee had refused to take the lease, the bankrupt would have remained tenant; as before.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Frazin