Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 F.1d 333 - The Fri

The Fri’s Empirical Analysis

154 F. 333 · 1907

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
December 2012
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp. (1941), Nichimen Company, Inc. v. M. v. Farland, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and A/s Vigra, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees v. Seaboard Shipping Co., Ltd. (1972)

26 federal appellate · 11 district ·

130190719101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance · Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · The Kensington · Kennett v. Chambers · Greenwood v. Curtis

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]s between the original parties to it a bill of lading never affects the terms of the charter party.... The usual practice is for the master, or agent of the shipowner, to give bills of lading for the cargo, although it may be shipped under a charter party. When the charterer himself ships the goods these bills of lading operate as receipts for them, and also as documents of title which he can negotiate, and thereby constructively transfer possession of the goods. But they do not, as between the shipowner and the charterer, operate as new contracts, or as modifying the contract in the charter party.... [W]here there is a charter party [a bill of lading] never supersedes any unequivocal provisions [of the charter party].... The rule is that where there is a charter party the bill of lading operates as the receipt for the goods, and as a document of title passing the property of the goods, but not as varying the contract between the charterer and the shipowner.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It appeared by the proofs, and was undisputed, that the master for over 15 years had navigated ocean vessels as master in many seas. Before he was appointed to the command of the Fri by her owners, he had been in command of another steamship of theirs for over a year, and he had made several voyages in command of the Fri before the voyage upon which the disaster took place. They had had an ample opportunity to estimate his capacity. It would seem to be holding them to an extreme and impracticable rule of diligence to require them to give better proof of his general competency than was actually shown.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where the bill of lading has been transferred for value [by the charterer] to third persons who are strangers to the charter party, its terms become very important. It then constitutes an undertaking on the part of the shipowner with the holders, which is independent of the charter party, except so far as that is expressly incorporated in it.”
    1 later decision 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.