Adam Ogilvie and other complainants brought a case against the Knox Insurance Company and others in 1855. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been issued policies of insurance by the defendants, but when their property was destroyed by fire, the defendants refused to pay out on those policies. The Supreme Court found for the plaintiffs, ruling that as long as there were no fraud or misrepresentation involved in obtaining the policy from either party, then it should be enforced according to its terms. Furthermore, if any ambiguity existed within a policy's language then it should be interpreted most favorably towards protecting an insured's rights under said contract. This decision established important precedent regarding contracts of insurance which is still applicable today.

In Adam Ogilvie et al. v. The Knox Insurance Company et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration, or something of value exchanged for the promise. In this case, Ogilvie and his partners had entered into an agreement with Knox Insurance Company in which they agreed to pay premiums on their insurance policies but received nothing in return from Knox until after the policy period expired. Justice Grier wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that contracts should not be enforced unless there is some form of consideration given by both parties at the time of making them; otherwise, people would have no incentive to keep their promises and agreements would become meaningless. He argued that although courts may sometimes enforce contracts even when one party has not provided anything of value in exchange for another's promise, such cases should only occur when justice requires it and where public policy dictates its necessity - neither condition applied here according to Grier's view.