Dunn v. Train’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are not aware of any absolute rule of law which would render actual possession and dominion inoperative, and a pledge invalid, because the keeper selected to protect the property was in the employ of the pledgor. Such a bailee or keeper was in the employ of the manufacturers in Sumner v. Hamlet, 12 Pick. 76 ; and even — as said in Casey v. Cavaroc, 96 U. S. 467 , 24 L. Ed. 779 — temporary possession may be in the pledgor himself, as special bailee, without defeating the legal possession of the pledgee. Neither is there any absolute rule of law that, where one keeper succeeds another, formal delivery shall be made to the successor. Of course, enough should be done to identify the property, and to show that dominion and control over the property were assumed by the successor; and this sufficiently appears,:for the learned judge below has said that the pile being left where it was and as it was, the successor added to this pile the product as it was delivered to him. Nor is there any absolute rule of law which requires property pledged to be removed from the premises of the pledgor. It is enough if the facts sufficiently show that the goods are actually set apart in the keeping of the special bailee, with authority to notify third persons that they are held in pledge,, and to remove the" goods, if found necessary for the safety of his principal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bush v. Export Storage Co.