Gokey v. Fort’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “”2. But the respondents were individually liable for the contracts of their managing agent, made in the home port, in the ordinary repair of the vessel, these repairs being known and approved by some of the owners. The Two Marys (D. C.) 10 Fed. 923 ; Scull v. Raymond (D. C.) 18 Fed. 549 . It has been held that the limitation provided by the act of 1884 upon the liabilities of the owners ‘on account of the ship’ does not extend to their personal contracts, but only to the debts and liabilities that arise out of the navigation or business of the ship, or from the contracts of the master, under his general powers in the course of the voyage. The Amos D. Carver [(D. C.) 35 Fed. 665 ]; McPhail v. Williams (D. C.) 41 Fed. 61 . Such has long been the construction of the broad provisions of the ordinance of Louis XIV., as well as of the similar provisions of section 216 of the Code of Commerce, (1 Valin, Comm. 568;) Emerigon, Cont. a la Grosse, c. 4, § 11; 2 Desjardin, Droit, Com. Mar. §§ 283-286 ; 2 Valroger, Com. du Code de Com. § 256. And, in general, repairs made in the home port by the owners, or by their authorized agent, are treated as the personal debts of the owners, and cannot be discharged by a surrender of the vessel.” ************ “Construing the acts of 3884 and 1851 in the light of these decisions, and of' the general maritime law which it was their purpose to introduce into pur jurisprudence, I must hold that the decree set up in the answer, limiting the liability of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rudolf v. Brown

2. ““But the respondents were individually liable for the contracts of their managing agent, made in the home port, in the ordinary repair of the vessel, these repairs being known and approved by some of the owners. The Two Marys (D. C.) 10 Fed. 923 ; Scull v. Raymond (D. O.) 18 Fed. 549 . It has been held that the limitation provided by the act of 1884 upon the liabilities of the owners ‘on account of the ship’ does not extend t(? their personal contracts, but only to the debts and liabilities that arise out of the navigation or business of the ship, or from the contracts of the master, under his general .powers in the course of the voyage. The Amos D. Carver [D. CJ supra [ 35 Fed. 669 ]; McPhail v. Williams [D. CJ 41 Fed. 61 . Such has long been'the construction of the broad provisions of the ordinance of Louis XIV, as well as of the similar provisions of section 216 of the Code of Commerce (1 Valin, Comm. 569); Emerigon Cont. a la Grosse, c. 4, Sec. 11; 2 Desjardin, Droit, Com. Mar. §§ 283-286 ; 2 Valroger, Com. du Code de Com. § 256. And, in general, repairs made in the home port by the owners, or by their authorized agent, are treated as the personal debts of the owners, and cannot be discharged by a surrender of the vessel. It is the same with the captain’s foreign contracts from the time they are ratified by the owners. Several of the maritime codes thus expressly provide. See Italian Code Mar. § 491; 3 Revue Internat. du Droit Mar. 316, 318; 4 Revue Internat. du Droit Mar”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. American Warehouse & Trading Co. v. Davison Lumber Co.

3. ““1 think the act of 1884 is doubtless to be treated as in pari materia with the act of 1851 (Rev. St. §§ 4233-4285), and designed to extend the act of 1851 to cases of the master’s acts or contracts, and thus to bring our law into harmony with the general maritime law on this subject.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Lawton