Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Name: Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. It explores elements such as the Civil Code, the Canal Zone and damage.

Quotes from Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ It is not necessary to dwell upon the drift toward the common law doctrine noticeable in some civil law jurisdictions at least, or to consider how far we should go if the language of the Civil Code were clearer than it is. It is enough that the language is not necessarily inconsistent with the common law rule. By article 2341, in the before-mentioned translation:
'He who shall have been guilty of an offense or fault, which has caused another damage, is obliged to repair it, without prejudice to the principal penalty which the law imposes. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ For whatever may be thought of the unqualified principle that a master must answer for the torts of his servant committed within the scope of his employment, probably there are few rules of the common law so familiar to all, educated and uneducated alike.
As early as 1910 the Supreme Court of the Canal Zone announced that it would look to the common law in the construction of the Columbia statutes. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ It is admitted by the plaintiff in error that the Canal Zone at the present time is peopled only by the employes of the Canal, the Panama Railroad, and the steamship lines and oil companies permitted to do business in the Zone under license. If it be true that the Civil Code would have been construed to exclude the defendant's liability in the present case if the Zone had remained within the jurisdiction of Columbia it does not follow that the liability is no greater as things stand now. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ We are satisfied that it would be a sacrifice of substance to form if we should reverse a decision, the principle of which has been accepted by all the judges accustomed to deal with the locality, in deference to the possibility that a different interpretation might have been reached if the Civil Code had continued to regulate a native population and to be construed by native Courts. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ The qualification in this last article may be taken to refer to acts outside the scope of the employment. It cannot refer to all torts, for that would empty the first part of meaning. A master must be taken to foresee that sooner or later a servant driving a motor will be likely to have a collision, which a jury may hold to have been due to his negligence, whatever care has been used in the employment of the man. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ The order contained this passage, 'The laws of the land, with which the inhabitants are familiar, and which were in force on February 26, 1904, will continue in force in the canal zone * * * until altered or annulled by the said commission'; with power to the Commission to legislate, subject to approval by the Secretary. This was construed to keep in force the Civil Code of the Republic of Panama, which was translated into English and pub lished by the Isthmian Canal Commission in 1905. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ As we do not rely for our conclusion upon a Columbia act specially concerning the empresarios of railroads, we do not discuss a suggestion, made only, it is said, to show that the act is inapplicable, to the effect that the charter of the Railroad Company did not grant the power to operate the omnibus line. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court

“ The instructions were refused, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 239 Fed. 303, 152 C. C. A. 291, followed in Panama R. Co. v. Toppin (C. C. A.) 250 Fed. ”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Summary

Quotes from Panama Company v. Bosse — Opinion of the Court (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature