William Bradley v. The Washington Alexandria and Georgetown Steam Packet Company’s Empirical Analysis
38 U.S. 89 · 1839
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 13 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Helvering v. New York Trust Co. (1934), United States v. Peck (1880)
18 federal appellate · 13 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. The Bank of Columbia
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ascertain the identity of the subject; in others, its extent; in some, to ascertain the meaning of a term, where it had acquired by use a particular meaning; in others, to ascertain in what sense it was used, where it admitted of several meanings; hut in all the purpose was the same — to ascertain by this medium of proof the intention of the parties, where, without the aid of such evidence that could not be done so as to give a just interpretation of the contract.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Without attempting to do what others have said they were unable to accomplish, that is, to reconcile all the decisions on the subject, we think that we may lay down this principle as the just result: that in giving effect to a written contract by applying it to its proper subject-matter, extrinsic evidence may be admitted to prove the circumstances under which it was made, whenever, without the aid of such evidence, such application could not be made in the particular case. “With this principle in view, we proceed to inquire whether the evidence offered by the defendant in this case ought to have been received by the court. * ' “Now, had the evidence been received, it would have disclosed the following state of facts: that the route mentioned in the contract was one on which the plaintiff in error transported passengers and also the mail; that the steamboat Sidney mentioned in the contract was designed to perform this service, and that the Franklin was wanted for the same purpose; that the Sidney was then at Baltimore for the purpose of being fitted with her engines and equipment; that although the transportation of passengers and the mail was carried on by the plaintiff in error in a steamboat whilst the river was open, yet when the river was closed by ice so that navigation was obstructed, the plaintiff in error then transported passengers and the mail one way overland to Fredericksburg; that when the river was thus obstructed, the plaintiff in error could not and did not ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““I agree to hire the Steamboat Franklin until the steamboat Sidney is placed on the route, to commence tomorrow, 20th inst., at $35 per day clear of all expenses other than the wages of Captain Nevitt. “W. A. Bradley. “19 Nov., 1831.” and a written acceptance of the same signed by the president of the company.”
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.