United States v. New Orleans Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 6 district · 70 state decisions

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

1. “‘ ‘ The appellants contend, in the next place, that the decision upon the facts was erroneous; that the mortgages, being prior in date to the bond given for the purchase money of these locomotives and cars, and being expressly made to include after acquired property, attached to the property as soon as it was purchased, and displaced any junior lien. This, we apprehend, is an erroneous view of the doctrine by which after acquired property is made to serve the uses of a mortgage. That doctrine is intended to subserve the purposes of justice, and not injustice. Such an application of it as is sought by the appellants would often result in gross injustice. A mortgage intended to cover after acquired property can only attach itself to such property in the condition in which it comes into the mortgagor’s hands.' If that property is already subject to mortgages or other lions, the general mortgage does not displace them, though they may be junior to it in point of time.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Central Trust Co. of New York v. Marietta & N. G. Ry. Co. · Holly Manuf'g Co. v. New Chester Water Co.

2. ““The appellants contend, in the next place, that the decision upon the facts was erroneous; that the mortgages, being prior in date to the bond given for the purchase-money of these locomotives and ears, and being expressly made to include after-acquired property, attached to the property as soon as it was purchased, and displaced any junior lien. This, we apprehend, is an erroneous view of the doctrine by which after-acquired property is made to serve the uses of a mortgage. The doctrine is intended to subserve the purposes of justice, and not injustice. Such an application of it as sought by the appellants would often result in gross injustice. A mortgage intended to cover, after-acquired property can only attach itself to such property in the condition in which it comes into the mortgagor’s hands. If the property is already subject to mortgage or other liens, the genera] mortgage does not displace them, though they may be junior to it in point of time. It only attaches to such interest, as the mortgagor acquires; and, if he purchase property and give a mortgage for the purchase money, the deed which he receives and the mortgage which he gives are' regarded as one transaction, and no general lien impending over him, whether in the shape of a general mortgage, or judgment;, or recognizance, can displace such mortgage for purchase money. And in such cases a failure to register the mortgage for purchase money makes no difference. It does not come within the reason of the regis”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fosdick v. Schall · National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City v. Carbondale Mach. Co.

3. “purchase[s] property and give[s] a mortgage for the purchase money ... as one transaction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Graves v. American Acceptance Mortgage Corp.