Bailey v. Tillinghast’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The comptroller’s certificate upon which the bank is allowed to begin business, and his further certificate approving an increase or reduction of the capital stock, are conclusive evidence of all facts which he is required to ascertain before the issuance thereof. These facts cover all that is essential to authorize the bank to begin, and go forward with the character and functions it is allowed to assume. Among these facts are that the capital stock has been lawfully subscribed, and, in the case of an increase, that the increase has been regularly created, and that it has been paid in. The purposes of the act in providing for and making necessary the comptroller’s certificate are that he shall make inquiry, and determine the existence of these essential facts; and make record evidence, upon which the public may rely, that the required conditions do in fact exist. The conelusiveness of the comptroller’s certificate is not now open to dispute. It is settled by repeated decisions upon the most satisfactory grounds. Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673 , 24 L. Ed. 168 ; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 , 24 L. Ed. 523 ; McCormick v. Bank, 165 U. S. 538 , 17 S. Ct. 433 , 436, 41 L. Ed. 817 ; Columbia Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 39 C. C. A. 491 , 85 F. 934 ; Brown v. Tillinghast, 35 C. C. A. 323 , 93 F. 326 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Benedict v. Anderson

2. ““TEere is a common question in the case between the receiver and the defendants, namely, the question whether the latter were released from their stock subscription by the fact that, whereas the resolution for increasing the stock in the sum of $300,000 was that under which their subscription took place, yet subsequently, by proceedings to which they did not consent, the proposed increase was reduced to $150,000. The protest interposed by Bailey in behalf of himself and the other stockholders to the certification by the comptroller of the modified increase of the capital stock of the bank assumes that they stood on the common ground already stated. And these circumstances, namely, the great number of the parties on one side or the other, the identity of the question of law, and the similarity of the facts in the, several controversies between the respective parties, are the basis on which the jurisdiction rests.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fidelity Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Archer

3. ““Where the whole amount is sought to be recovered, the proceeding must be at law. Where less is required, the proceeding may be in equity, and in such a case an interlocutory decree may be taken for contribution, and the case may stand over for the further action of the court, if such action should subsequently prove to be necessary, until the full amount of the liability is exhausted.” .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hale v. Allinson