Sylvester v. The Edith Godden’s Empirical Analysis
25 F. 511 · 1885
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
June 1913
most recently cited
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Railway Company v. Whitton's Administrator · Insurance Company v. Morse · Ex parte McNiel · Steamship Company v. Joliffe · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Kirk
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon the merits * * * I think the pilot has sufficiently made out his claim in accordance with the statutes of New Jersey to be paid for his services, which were offered and rejected. The right to enforce such claims by libel in rem has been repeatedly sustained, even wheré the state statute did not in express terms make the vessel liable. The Glenearne [D. C.] 7 Fed. 604 ; The Lord Clive [D. C.] 10 Fed. 135 . The Supreme Court in the cases of Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450 , 457 [ 17 L. Ed. 805 ], and of Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 , 242 [20 L. Ed. Q24], has expressly declared that the obligation to pay these pilotage fees under state statutes, where the pilot’s services are tendered'and refused, is a liability upon a contract implied by the statute. Lowell, J., in the case of The America, 1 Low. 176 [Fed. Cas. No. 289], says: ‘The suit is for an offer which the law makes equivalent to actual service.’ Contract obligations in the navigation of the ship are enforceable in rem. as well as in personam. These adjudications as to the nature of the obligation, made since the decision of Judge Betts and Judge Sprague in the cases of The George Law, 6 Amer. Law Keg. 368 [Fed. Cas. No. 8,223], and of The Robert J. Mercer, 1 Spr. 284 [Fed. Cas. No. 11,892], in effect overrule the decisions in the cases last named. “In various other cases since, where writs of prohibition were refused by the Supreme Court, the proceedings were in rem. Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. S. 520 [ 26 L. Ed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. The Queen
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.