Dows v. National Exchange Bank’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 618 · 1875
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 12 district · 121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably Sturm v. Boker (1893), Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Sims (1903)
35 federal appellate · 12 district · 121 state decisions — followed in 35 states
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.
Relationships
Relies on Railroad Company v. Stout · McNeil v. . the Tenth National Bank · Saltus & Saltus v. Everett · Ballard v. . Burgett
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Accordingly, they drew drafts for the price; but they never agreed to deliver the wheat to the drawees, unless upon the condition that the drafts should be accepted and paid. They shipped it; but they did not consign it to Smith & Co. and they sent to that firm no bills of lading; on the contrary, they consigned the wheat to the cashier of the Milwaukee Bank, and handed over to that bank the bills of lading as a security for the drafts drawn against it — drafts which the bank purchased. It is true, they sent invoices. That, however, is of no significance by itself. The position taken on behalf of the defendants, that the transmission of the invoices passed the property in the wheat without the acceptance and payment of the drafts drawn against it, is utterly untenable. An invoice is not a bill of sale, nor is it evidence of a sale. It is a mere detailed statement of the nature, quantity and cost or price of the things invoiced, and it is as appropriate to a bailment as it is to a sale.” (p. 630.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That such is the legal effect of a bill of lading taken deliverable to the shipper's. own order, that it is inconsistent with an intention to pass the ownership of the cargo to the person on whose account it may have been purchased, even when the shipment has been made in the vessel of the drawee of the drafts against the^ cargo, has been repeatedly decided”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But in this case there are no circumstances to rebut the intent to retain ownership exhibited in the bills of lading, and confirmed throughout by the indorsements on the bills, and by the written instructions to hold the wheat until payment of the drafts. Nothing in the evidence received or offered tended to show any other intent. Hence, there was no necessity of submitting to the jury the question, whether there was a change of ownership. That would have been an invitation to find a- fact of which there was no evidence. The circumstances as relied upon by the plaintiffs in error, as tending to showing that the property vested in A. F. Smith & Co., cannot have the significance attributed to them.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bennett v. Dickinson
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.