Commercial National Bank of New Orleans v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 11 district · 93 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a familiar rule that one who has no title to chattels cannot transfer title unless he has the owner’s authority or the owner is estopped. See Civil Code (La.) Arts. 2452, 3142, 3145, 3146. It follows that, in the absence of circumstances creating an estoppel, one without title cannot transfer it by the simple device of warehousing the goods and indorsing the receipts. But if the owner of the goods has permitted another to be clothed with the apparent ownership through' the possession of warehouse receipts, negotiable in form, there is abundant ground for protecting a bona fide purchaser for value to whom the receipts have been negotiated. Pollard vs. Reardon, 13 C. C. A. 171 , 21 U. S. App. 639, 65 Fed. 848, 852 ; Williston, Sales, 421. The effect of the negotiation of warehouse receipts is defined in the uniform warehouse receipts act, enacted in Louisiana by Act 221 of 1908. This Act provides: “ ‘Sec. 40. Who may negotiate a receipt, —A negotiable receipt may be negotiated, ‘“(a) By the owner thereof; or “‘(b) By any person to whom the possession or custody of the receipt has been intrusted by the owner, if, by the terms of the receipt, the warehouseman undertakes to deliver the goods to the order of the person to whom the possession or custody of the receipt has been intrusted, or if at the time of such intrusting the receipt is in such form that it may be negotiated by delivery. “ ‘See. 41. Rights of person to whom a receipt has been negotiated, — A person to whom ”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. Exporters & Traders Compress Co. · Marine Bank & Trust Co. v. Greenville Savings Bank & Trust Co.

2. “‘ ‘ This rule of construction requires that in order to accomplish the beneficient object of unifying, so far as this is possible under our dual system, the commercial law of the country, there should be taken into consideration the fundamental purpose of the uniform act, and that it should not be regarded merely as an off-shoot of local law. . . .We think that the principle of the uniform act should have recognition to the exclusion of any inconsistent doctrine which may have previously obtained in any of the states enacting it.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Coleman · In Re Hedgeside Distillery Corp.

3. ““A pledgee of bills of lading for cotton, who permits the pledgor to withdraw such bills of lading under an agreement to hold for the pledgee’s account, and thus enables the pledgors to obtain negotiable warehouse receipts, which they pledge to a bank as security for .their notes, cannot question the title of the latter, having clothed the pledgor with the indicia of ownership, within the meaning of the doctrine established by the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act (La. Acts 1908, No. 221, §§ 40, 41, 47), that, if the owner of goods permits another to have possession or custody of negotiable warehouse receipts running to the order of the latter or to bearer, it is a representation of title upon which bona fide negotiators for value are entitled to rely, despite breaches of trust or violations of agreement on the part of the apparent owner. * * * “The rights of a pledgee of warehouse receipts under the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act (La. Acts 1908, No. 221, §§ 40, 41, 47), as a bona fide purchaser, where the pledgors had been clothed with apparent ownership by the real owner, are not lost by permitting the pledgors to withdraw' such receipts under an agreement to hold for the pledgee’s account where this did not result in a subsequent negotiation. of them to a purchaser in good faith for value.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. Box · Canal-Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. New Orleans, T. & M. Ry. Co.