The General Smith’s Empirical Analysis
17 U.S. 438 · 1819
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 38 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 178 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917), Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart (1920)
43 federal appellate · 38 district · 16 state decisions
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 The Lottawanna · Cohn v. United States Corset Co. · Peyroux v. Howard · Walden et al
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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No doubt Is entertained by this court that the admiralty rightfully possesses a general jurisdiction in cases of materialmen; and, if this had been a suit in personam, there would not have been any hesitation in sustaining the jurisdiction of the district court. Where, however, the proceeding is in rem to enforce a specific lien, it is incumbent upon those who seek the aid of the court to establish the existence of such lien in the particular case. Where repairs have been made or necessaries have been furnished to a foreign ship, or to a ship in a port of the state to which she does not belong, the general maritime law, following the civil law, gives the party a lien on the ship itself for his security; and he may well maintain a suit in rem in the admiralty to enforce his right. But in respect to repairs and necessaries in the port of a state to which the ship belongs the case is governed altogether by the municipal law of that state, and no lien is implied, unless it is recognized by that law. Now, it has been long settled—whether originally upon the soundest principles it is now too late to inquire—that by the common law, which is the law of Maryland, materialmen and mechanics furnishing repairs to a domestic ship have no particular lien upon the ship itself for the recovery of their demands. A shipwright, indeed, who has taken a ship into his own possession to repair it, is not bound to part with the possession until he is paid for the repairs, any more than any other ar”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The Glide · Morris v. Bartlett““In all suits by material-men for supplies, repairs, or other necessaries for a foreign ship, or for a ship in a foreign port, the libelant may proceed against the ship and freight in rem, or against the master or owner alone in person-am, and the like proceeding in rem shall apply to cases of domestic ships, where by the local law a lien is given to material-men for supplies, repairs, and other necessaries.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the case of a domestic ship, it was long since - settled by the most solemn adjudications of the common law, (which was the law of Maryland,) that, mechanics have no lien upon the. ship itself for their demands, but must look to the personal security of the owner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ramsay v. Allegre
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.