The Eureka’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Claimant contends that the various libelants were obliged to make inquiry as to the ownership of the Oceana. As will be seen, some of them did make such inquiry of the agents of the agreed purchaser in possession, and were misled. But claimant says this was not due diligence, and that the inquiry should have been made at the custom house, where the legal ownership was a matter of record. Claimant very ably contends that Congress did not intend to alter the law stated by the Supreme Court in the case of the Valencia, and that the supply men who failed to make any Inquiry and ‘shut their eyes’ as to the ownership of the vessel should be denied liens. Were the question one which 1 felt free to consider as open for a commissioner, Í should hesitate before deciding otherwise, but the federal lien act has already been so frequently interpreted by the courts as to show a marked trend of judicial opinion to the effect that Congress intended to say and has said in effect that a supply man may furnish necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner, or of any one intrusted by the owner with the management of the vessel at the port of supply, and, unless something is brought to his attention which would suggest the duty of inquiry, he may presume that he has a lien for the necessaries so furnished. If the supply man have notice that he is dealing with a charterer or agreed purchaser in possession, then he is obliged to inquire as to the authority of the person with whom he is dealing”

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