Pardee v Aldridge, 189 U.S. 429 (1903)
This, another economics case, was decided on March 16, 1903. Justice Holmes' opinion on these complex facts was five pages long. Was there a word limit back then? lol Chief Justice Edward Douglass White and Justice Rufus W. Peckham dissented, the second dissent by the latter in Holmes' first two opinions for the majority.
Holmes' simplifying straight-edge is evident:
The only parcels here in controversy are two tracts...
Although it may not be necessary, we will state the title on each side a little more in detail before discussing the questions of law.
Although it may not have been necessary there follows seven full paragraphs, the majority of the opinion, on the facts.
Statement of conclusion:
On the findings which we have recited, the land in dispute was not property used for and pertaining to the operation of said railroad, and the ruling of the court of appeals was right.
Oh,
Some point is made of the disclaimer...But a party may disclaim what he likes, in advance of the evidence, and is not bound to give reasons for his course.
There is,
One matter remains to be mentioned. ...One ground of the bill...It is argued... [was a] proceeding... in rem, and that the decree brought the property into the custody of the court so as to invalidate the sale. [citation omitted] But a suit in equity is not a proceeding in rem, properly so called.
And anyway,
Probably nothing was done under the suit in equity beyond the entering of the decree on July 16, 1895. The principal sale took place before that date.
Judgment affirmed.I see here, as in Holmes' previous opinions, almost a desperate desire at brevity and simplification. I cannot trace the origins of these pronounced tendencies to anything that I know of Holmes' personality or his philosophy. Undoubtedly it would be helpful to compare the bare length of Holmes' opinions with others in his early tenure on the Supreme Court. His brevity and his razor have not worked a persuaded consensus among his brethren.
