Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 U.S. 204 - The Kalorama

The Kalorama’s Empirical Analysis

77 U.S. 204 · 1869

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 1991
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1991 · most notably North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co. (1919), The J. E. Rumbell (1893)

25 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 state decisions

22018691870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

  1. ““Suggestion is also made that the lien was waived by the commencement of ,an action for the advances in the State court, but the record shows that the action is still pending, and it is well-settled law that the pend-ency of such an action'is no bar to a suit in a Federal court. Had the judgment been rendered it might be different, but it is clear that the rule ‘transit in rem judieatam’ cannot apply during the pendency of the action.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ No doubt is entertained by this court, that the admiralty rightfully possesses a general jurisdiction in cases of material men; and if this had been a suit in personam, there would not have been any hesitation in sustaining the jurisdiction of the District Court. Where, however, the proceeding is in rem to enforce a specific lien, it is incumbent upon those, who seek the aid of the court, to establish the existence of such lien in the particular case. Where repairs have been made, or necessaries have been furnished to a foreign ship, or to a ship in a port of the State to which she does not belong, the general maritime law, following the civil law, gives the party a lien on the ship itself for his security; and he may well maintain a suit in rem in the admiralty to enforce his right. But in respect- to repairs and necessaries in the port or State to which the ship belongs, the case is governed altogether by the municipal law of that State; and no lien is implied, unless it is recognized by that law. Now, it has been long settled, whether originally upon the soundest principles it is now too late to inquire, that by the comihon law, which is the law of Maryland, material men and mechanics furnishing repairs to a domestic ship, have no particular lien upon the ship itself for the recovery of their demands. A shipwright, indeed, who has taken a ship into his own possession to repair it, is not bound to part with the possession until'he is paid for the repairs, any more than an”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. The Glide
  3. ““Where it appears that the repairs and supplies were necessary to preserve the ship in port, or to enable her to proceed on her voyage, and that they were made and furnished in good faith, the presumption is that the ship, as well as the master and owner, is responsible to those who made the necessary advances, and it is dear that the necessity for credit must be presumed where it appears that the repairs and supplies were ordered by the master, and that they were necessary for the ship, unless it is shown that the master had funds or that the owner had sufficient credit, and that the repairers, furnishers, or lenders of the money knew these facts, or one of them, * * * subject to those conditions, the master, in the absence of the owner, is vested with the authority to order necessary repairs and supplies; but it is no objection to his authority that he acted on the occasion under the express instructions of the owner, nor will the lien of those who made the repairs and furnished the supplies be defeated by the fact that his authority emanated from the owner, instead of being implied by law. When the owner is present, the implied authority of the master for that purpose ceases; but, if the' owner gives direction to that effect, the master may still order necessary repairs and supplies, and if the ship is, at the time, in a foreign port, or in the port of a state other than that to which she belongs, those who made the advances will have a maritime lien, if they were made on ”
    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.