Munn v. The Columbus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The libelant Is part owner and managing owner of the tugs Philadelphia and Alert. In the year 1891, James A. Mundy & Co. entered into a contract, with the United States for the removal of Windmill and other islands in the_ Delaware river, opposite Philadelphia, and for the deposit of the material’ removed therefrom upon League Island. To carry out this work, James A. Mundy and others organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey a corporation known as the ‘Philadelphia Dredging Company,’ and this dredging company, or James A. Mundy and others associated with him, purchased and secured a dredging plant,—i. e. a number of dredges, scows, and towboats,—to be used in the same operation of dredging for the prosecution of the work of the removal of these islands. This plant was made up of two dredging plants, one known as the ‘Philadelphia Plant,’ and the other as the ‘Thompson Plant.’ The Philadelphia dredging plant consisted of the dredge Starbuek and three bottom-dumping scows, Nosi 13, 14, and 15. The Thompson plant consisted of the dredges Columbus, America, and Norwalk, and the tug Bowen, and the scows Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. These two plants were used- and operated as one by the Philadelphia Dredging Company. The dredges above mentioned were anchored at the islands which were to be removed, and, as the earth was excavated, it was deposited upon the scows by the dredges in the manner usual in dredging operations. By the contract with the United Stat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Munn v. Garver

2. ““The libelant has proceeded on a supposed joint lien against the several vessels attached, for the entire contract price of all the services separately rendered to these vessels, and to others not attached which were engaged in the same work. The proceeding is anomalous; no precedent for it is to be found in the history of admiralty jurisprudence. It is doubtless an experiment, suggested by the libelant’s necessities. The dredging company having failed to keep its contract and being insolvent, the libelant must lose compensation for bis services unless he can establish a lien such as he sets up. He might have kept an account with each vessel, and have proceeded against her separately for it, but looking evidently, to the dredging company alone for payment, he failed to do this. Now, to overcome the difficulty, he seeks to treat all the vessels as one, and supposes he may do so, because they were engaged in the same work, and thus hopes to recover his entire claim for the services rendered to all from such as he ha.s been able to catch. That he cannot do this seems plain.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Astor Trust Co. v. E. V. White & Co.