Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 F.1d 708 - The Director

The Director’s Empirical Analysis

26 F. 708 · 1886

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
June 2002
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2002

6 federal appellate · 10 district ·

401886189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on The Plymouth · Providence Co v. Hill Manuf'G · The " Scotland" · Norwich Company v. Wright · Scott v. Ira Chaffee

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

  1. ““My own Impression of the matter is with Mr. Benedict, when he says [Ben. Adm. § 397] ‘that whenever the libelant’s cause of action gives him a lien or privilege against the thing, and a full personal right against the owner, then he may, by a libel properly framed, proceed against the person and the thing, and compel the owner to come in and to submit to the decree of the court against him personally in the same suit, for any possible deficiency.’ It is a question simply of procedure, and should be determined mainly, if not altogether, upon considerations of fitness and convenience; and every argument draw.n from this source is in favor of the joinder of the remedies in rem and in personam, whoever the person may be, and pursuing them in one libel, as one suit.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Whether brought against the master, owner, or vessel, there is no substantial difference, either in allegation, proof, or decree. The liability in either case grows out of the same facts, and the relief sought and obtainable is the same. The only difference is in the enforcement of the decree, and that is merely a difference in degree; the enforcement of the one given in the suit in rem being, in the nature of things, limited to the sale of the vessel proceeded against, while the one in the suit in personam may be enforced by an execution against the property of the defendant generally. This being so, every argument founded on convenience and economy is in favor of their joinder in one suit.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]s soon as the performance of the contract is commenced a lien exists on the vessel in favor of the shipper or charterer, and a suit in rem may be maintained against the same for any liability of the master or owner arising on or growing out of such contract.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.