Railroad Company v. Manufacturing Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 8 district · 50 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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Xr. such cases it is tbe duty of the carrier; in the absence of any special' contract, to carry safely to the end of his line, and to deliver to the next carrier beyond; and that public policy requires that the rule should be enforced, and will not allow the carrier to escape responsibility at the end of his route without delivery or' an attempt to deliver to the connecting carrier.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reiss v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. · Buston v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

2. ““The rule that bolds the carrier only liable to the extent of his own route, and for the safe storage and delivery to the next carrier, is in itself so just and reasonable that we do not hesitate to give it our sanction. Public policy, however, requires that the rule should be enforced, and will not allow the carrier to escape responsibility on storing the goods at the end of his route, without delivering or attempting to deliver to the connecting carrier. If there be a necessity for storage, it will be considered a mere accessory to the transportation, and not as changing the end of the bailment. It is very clear that the simple depositing of the goods by the carrier in his depot, unaccompanied' by any act indicating an intention to renounce the obligation of a carrier, will not change or modify even his liability. It may be that circumstances may arise after the goods have reached the depot which would justify the carrier in warehousing them; but, if he had reasonable grounds to anticipate the occurrence of these adverse circumstances when he received the goods, he cannot, by storing them, change his relation towards them.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Crayton

3. ““It may be regarded as the established American rule that a common carrier may not restrict or limit his common law liability by general notices, even though the contents of such notices are brought home to the knowledge of the shipper, but that, in the absence of evidence of his assent to the terms thereof, the implication is as strong that he intended to insist on his rights and the duties of the carrier, as it is that he consented to their limitation or qualification, despite the existence of a few scattered authorities to the contrary. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United Artists Corp. v. Puget Sound Electric Railway