Morse Dry Dock Repair Co v. The Northern Star’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 federal appellate · 33 district · 1 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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The owner of course had ‘authority to bind the vessel’ by virtue of his title without the aid of statute. The only importance of the statute was to get rid of the necessity for a special contract or for evidence that credit was given to the vessel. Subsection R,® * * * it is true, after providing that certain officers shall be included among those presumed to have authority from the owner to create a lien for supplies goes on that ‘nothing in this section shall be construed to confer a lien when the furnisher knew, or by exercise of reasonable diligence could have ascertained, that because of the terms of a charter party, agreement for sale of the vessel, or for any other reason, the person ordering the repairs, supplies, or other necessaries was without authority to bind the vessel therefor.’ But even if this language be construed, as dealing with anything more than the authority of a third person to represent the owner so as to create a lien, still when supplies are ordered by the owner the statute does not attempt to forbid a lien simply because the owner has contracted with a mortgagee not to give any paramount security on the ship. The most that such a contract can do is to postpone the claim of a party chargeable with notice of it to that of the mortgagee.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atlantic Steamer Supply Company v. the Tradewind · Israel v. Motor Vessel Nili

2. “(a) No ... mortgage which, at the time such ... mortgage is made, includes a vessel of the United States, or any portion thereof, as the whole or any part of the property ... mortgaged shall be valid, in respect to such vessel, against any person other than the ... mortgagor, his heir or devisee, and a person having actual notice thereof, until such ... mort gage is recorded in the office of the collector of customs of the port of documentation of such vessel, as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Such collector of customs shall record ... mortgages delivered to him, in the order of their reception, in books to be kept for that purpose and indexed to show— (1) The name of the vessel; (2) The names of the parties to the ... mortgage; (3) The time and date of reception of the instrument; (4) The interest in the vessel so ... mortgaged; and (5) The amount and date of maturity of the mortgage.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Alberto · In Re Pasquale Alberto, Debtor. Appeal of Maryland National Bank

3. “Obviously the statute taken literally may work harshly if by any oversight or otherwise the collector does not do his duty, and excellent reasons could be found for charging the petitioner with notice of a document that both was recorded and was kept with the ship’s papers. But the words of the statute seem to us too clear to be escaped. The mortgage is made preferred only upon compliance with all the conditions specified, one of which is indorsement, and the maritime lien is preferred if it arises before the recording and indorsement of the mortgage. We see no room for construction, and there is nothing for the courts to do but to bow their heads and obey.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of Alberto · United States v. Crusader