The W. G. Mason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 15 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The, authorities cited in the opinion of the court below, and upon the argument at bar, are, The Arturo (D. C.) 6 Fed. 308 ; The Bordentown (D. C.) 40 Fed. 683 ; The Columbia, 73 Fed. 226 , 19 C. C. A. 436 ; and Van Eyken v. Erie R. Co. (D. C.) 117 Fed. 717 . The Arturo was a case in which two tugs, belonging to different owners, while performing a towage service, stranded the tow upon a shoal; both tugs being in command of the master of one of the tugs. The decision was that both were liable because both were in fault. Judge Lowell in his opinion, after stating that, if one tug was wholly in fault, she alone would be responsible, says: ‘But for their joint action, so. far as it conduced to the loss, I hold them to be jointly responsible.’ The Bordentown was a case in which Judge Brown held both the Borden-town and the Winnie, tugs engaged in a towage service, liable for the fault of the master of the Bordentown. Both tugs were owned by the same owner, and the master of the Bordentown was in'command of both. Judge Brown said: ‘At the time when the master’s fault arose the Winnie was as much a part of the moving power as the Bordentown, and was equally under the same direction. She belonged to the same owners, and from the beginning to the end she was engaged, in the owner’s behalf, in the work of towing the other boats, precisely as the Bordentown was engaged. It was immaterial on board which tug the master for the time being was, or from which boat his orders were given. Bo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Anthracite

2. ““A tug and her tow are deemed a single vessel under steam, within the • meaning of the rules of navigation for preventing collisions; but it has never been asserted elsewhere that they could be regarded as one vessel for the purpose of ascertaining their relations as between themselves, or their several liabilities to respond for the consequences of a fault of one of them. Even when two vessels are lashed together, the question of the liability of each always depends upon ascertaining whether that vessel was in fault.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Coastwise

3. ““If the liability of the owner for the tort or wrong of a vessel, arising from the misconduct or negligence of her master or crew, could be enforced against another vessel belonging to the same owner, whenever she might happen to be engaged in the same enterprise with the other vessel, though acting in an independent capacity, and under the control of her own master and crew, in performing her part of it, the spirit and meaning of the statute limiting the liabilities of vessel owners would be disregarded.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thompson Towing & Wrecking Ass'n v. McGregor