Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. And Others. 1’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

129 federal appellate · 17 district · 8 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 265 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “, “The argument, by which it is endeavored to support the service of process upon persons without the district, is 'that the present suit is one that is auxiliary to the former suit' in which the decree of foreclosure was had; that it is so far merely a continuation of that, suit; and that it is not a new and original suit. '* * * It may be conceded for the purposes of this motion that it is to a certain extent auxiliary to the original foreclosure suit. * * * But it also partakes so far of the nature of an original suit that the parties who are here contesting service of this process cannot be brought before the court by anything short of a subpoena in chancery; and cannot be compelled to answer and respond to the allegations of the present bill in any other mode than in the mode usually adopted in original chancery bills.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co. v. George E. Breece Lumber Co. · Richardson v. Loree

2. ““It may be conceded for the purposes of this motion that it is to a certain extent auxiliary to the original foreclos'ure suit, and that proceedings to set aside that decree, and to set aside also the sale of the railroad under that decree, can only be instituted in the Circuit Court of the United States in which that decree was rendered. But it also partakes so far of the nature of an original suit that the parties who are here contesting service of this process cannot be brought before the court by anything short of a subpoena in chancery, and cannot be compelled to answer and respond to the allegations of the present bill in any other mode than in the mode usually adopted in original chancery bills. The argument that in such a case as this a subpoena in chancery can be issued, so as to run beyond the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and be validly served beyond that jurisdiction, overlooks two important propositions: (1) It is of the essence of the power and jurisdiction of all courts that their process is of no validity beyond the territory in which the court sits, and to which its jurisdiction extends. If, therefore, there is no other statute on the subject than simply that the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri shall have jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the district, it would follow logically from this limitation upon the inherent power of all courts that its process shall be of no validity beyond its ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manning v. Berdan

3. ““We are of the opinion tha.t this court cannot consider anything which is not contained in the hill and the exhibits which are annexed to it, and that it cannot look into anything otherwise presented, as the files and records of the Ketchum suit, or of any other proceedings in any court, for the purpose of determining the questions arising on the demurrers to this bill.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richardson v. Loree