Wright v. J. & S. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 57 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In a case of strict negligence by a servant while employed in the service of his master, I see no reason why an action will not lie against both jointly. They are both guilty of the same negligence, at the same time, and under the same circumstances, — the servant in fact, and the master constructively, by the servant, his agent. Mr. Hammond lays down the rule in this way: ‘Whether the principal and inferior may be charged jointly depends on whether the inferior is liable as a trespasser vi et armis, or in case only. If the latter, they may he sued together, but otherwise if the former; it being held, how justly may be questioned, that a principal is liable for his agent's misconduct only in case.’ Ham. Parties, 85, 86. The rule is, in the main, doubtless, right, but seems to be shaken by Moreton v. Hardern, 6 Dowl. & R. 275, in respect to the quality of the servant’s act. There were, in that case, three proprietors of a coach. One was driving, and ran against the plaintiff’s cart. All three were sued in case, and several judges thought either trespass or case would lie against the driver, though the mischief arose from mere negligence, but all agreed that case only would lie against the other two who were absent; yet the action was maintained against all three.’:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Warax v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.

2. ““It is a question of very general concern, and has been often canvassed, but T hope at last it will be at rest. * * * When a servant quits sight of the object for which he is employed, and without having in view his master’s orders, pursues that which Ms own malice suggests, he no longer acts in pursuance of the authority given him, a ad his master will not be answerable for such acts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Scoville

3. ““The line where the master's liability shall terminate must be placed somewhere, and the acquiescence of Westminster Hall for many years on the rule we have cited, as laid down by Lord Kenyon, is an evidence of the common law not to be resisted, especially as it will not be found, I imagine, i.o conflict with any general principle of that law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Scoville