Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 U.S. 578 - United States v. Prescott

United States v. Prescott’s Empirical Analysis

44 U.S. 578 · 1845

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
December 1979
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 6 district · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1979 · most notably United States v. Clark (1877), Smythe v. United States (1903)

12 federal appellate · 6 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 26 states

16018451850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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.

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

  1. ““This is not a case of bailment, and, consequently, the law of bailment does not apply to it. The liability of tlie defendant arises out of liis official bond and principles which are founded upon public policy. * * * Tlie obligation to keep safely the money is absolute, without any condition, expressed or implied, and nothing but the payment of it, when required, can discharge the bond. * * * Public policy requires that every depositary of the public money should be held to a strict accountability. Not only that he should exercise the highest degree of vigilance, but that ‘he should keep safely’ the moneys which come to his hands. Any relaxation of this condition would open the door to frauds, which might be practiced with impunity. A depositary would have nothing more to do than to lay his plans and arrange his proofs, so as to establish his loss, without laches on his part. Pet such a principle be applied to our postmasters, collectors of the customs, receivers of public moneys, and others who receive more or less of the public funds, and what losses might not be anticipated by the public! No such principle has been recognized or admitted as a legal defense. And it is believed the instances are few, if, indeed, any can be found, where any relief has been given in such cases by the interposition of congress. As every depositary receives tlie office with a full knowledge, of its responsibilities, he cannot, in ease of loss, comxilain of hardship. He must stand by his bond, a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Does the felonious stealing, taking, and carrying away tlie public moneys in the custody of a receiver of public: moneys, without any fault or negligence on his part, discharge him and his sureties, and is that a good and valid defense to an action on his official bond?””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““This is not a case of bailment, and consequently the law of bailment does not apply to it. The liability of the defendant Prescott arises out of liis official bond, and principles which are founded upon public policy.””
    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.