Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 U.S. 24 - Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company

Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company’s Empirical Analysis

219 U.S. 24 · 1910

Citation profile

284
cited by 284 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

94 federal appellate · 52 district · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 284 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States Ex Rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co. (1957), Illinois Surety Company v. John Davis Company E H B (1917)

94 federal appellate · 52 district · 78 state decisions — followed in 23 states

850191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedTitle Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Puget Sound Engine Works (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville · United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. · United States v. Freeman · Lewis Trustee v. United States

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

  1. “"Stripped of all technicality, plaintiff and intervenor seek to recover damages claimed to have been incurred because of the breach by the contractor of an implied covenant in the sub-contract against unreasonable delays preventing the subcontractors from proceeding with their work. The parties recognize this, because in the only point relied upon in their designation of points, it is asserted that: ‘ * * * a subcontractor can recover his damages consisting of expenses made necessary by the delay of the principal contractor in a proceeding to recover on the bond under the Heard Act, 40 U.S.Code, Sec. 270.’ They cite numerous authorities to sustain their position that every contract contains an implied warranty against unnecessary delays and that recovery may be had for loss resulting from a breach thereof. These decisions are beside the point, because they arose in actions against the contractor for damages and not against the surety on a Heard Act bond. “The bond on which the action is based is not set out in the abstract, but we may assume that it is in due form and conforms to the requirements of the Act. The Act obligates the surety company to see that the contractor ‘shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them with labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract.’ It requires payment not only of work and materials specifically mentioned in the contract, but also those items which the parties necessarily and reasonabl”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The language of the statute that after giving the affidavit the party should be furnished with a certified copy of the contract and bond, ‘upon which he or they shall have a right of action,’ etc., may be read as meaning ‘upon which bond’ as easily as ‘upon doing which,’ and hardly can be construed as making a condition precedent. The conditions are attached in the form of provisos by later words.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Of the other class are the claims for patterns furnished to the molding department of the Puget Sound Engine Works. As was' said by the Judge below, those who furnish the patterns have as fair a claim to be protected as those who erect the scaffolding upon which the carpenters stand in doing their work upon the ship.””
    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.