Fosdick v. Schall’s Empirical Analysis
99 U.S. 235 · 1878
Citation profile
225 federal appellate · 52 district · 130 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 719 later decisions (58 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably York Manufacturing Company v. Arthur Cassell J B (1906), Union Trust Co of New York v. Illinois Midland Ry Co Borg (1886)
225 federal appellate · 52 district · 130 state decisions — followed in 34 states
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 State Railroad Tax Cases Taylor Collector et al. v. Secor et al. · Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works · Galveston Railroad v. Cowdrey · Minnesota Company v. St Paul Company
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 719 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For even though the mortgage may in terms give a lien upon the profits and income until possession of the mortgaged premises is actually taken or something equivalent done, the whole earnings belong to the company and iire subject to its control. The mortgagee has his strict rights which ha may enforce in the ordinary way. If he asks no favors, he need grant none. But, if he calks upon a court of chancery to put forth its extraordinary powers and grant him purely equitable relief, he may with propriety be required to submit to the operation of a rule which always applies in such eases, and do equity in order to get equity.””
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“•‘The possession taken by the receiver is only that of the court, whose officer he is, and adds nothing to the previously existing title of the mortgagees. He holds, pending the litigation, for the benefit of whomsoever in the end it shall be found to concern, and in the mean time the court proceeds to determine the rights of the parties upon the same principles it would if no change of possession had taken place.” Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 251 ; Railroad Co. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 787 , et seq. .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““They [the mortgagees] are in no sense purchasers of the cars. The mortgage attaches to the cars, if it attaches at all, because they are after-acquired property of the company; but as to that class of property it is well settled that the lien attaches subject to all the conditions with which it is incumbered when it comes into the hands of the mortgagor. The mortgagees take just such an interest in the property as the mortgagor acquired; no more, no less.””
2 later decisions 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.