McCaldin v. The Stroma’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 15 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It Is, perhaps, unnecessary to say that the same presumptions by virtue of which a lien is placed upon a vessel for the payment of necessary supplies furnished to her in a foreign port upon the sole order of the master are not applicable to the case of supplies furnished in a foreign port to a vessel upon the express direction of the known general owner. In the latter case, there is not, prima facie, a presumption that there was a necessity for the credit of the ship. The known general owner may, however, expressly pledge the credit of his vessel in a foreign port for supplies, and there often are circumstances and facts which show that the credit of the vessel was pledged in fact, though not in words, and that such security was within the common intent of both- parties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Roanoke

2. ““When the known foreign special owner, not being the master, orders the supplies in a foreign port, and the libelant has reason to know that, as between the special and the general owner, the former is not the agent of the latter, but is personally, solely liable for the debt, and he furnished the goods in silencej there being no acts or circumstances from which it can be inferred that the credit, of the ship was either within the contemplation of both parties, or was recognized by both, a maritime lien will not be implied.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gulf City Coal & Wood Co. v. Bru

3. ““It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the same prima facie presumption, by virtue of which a lien is placed upon a vessel for the payment for necessary supplies furnished to her in a foreign port upon the sole order of the master, is not applicable in the case of supplies furnished in a foreign port to a vessel upon the express direction of the known general owner. In the latter case there is not, prima facie, a presumption that there was. a necessity for the credit of the ship.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Empire Warehouse Co. v. The Advance