Atkinson v. The Mutual Assurance Society Against Fire, on Buildings of the State of Virginia was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1810. It involved an insurance policy taken out by Atkinson for his property in Richmond, Virginia from The Mutual Assurance Society against Fire on Buildings of the State of Virginia. After a fire destroyed part of Atkinson's property, he sued to recover damages under the terms and conditions set forth in his policy with The Mutual Assurance Society. However, when it came time to pay out damages due to Atkinson according to their agreement, they refused and argued that since there had been no payment made into their society prior to or at any time after taking out this particular policy with them that they were not liable for any losses incurred as a result of said fire. In its decision however, the court held that even though no payments had been made into their society prior or subsequent to taking out this particular policy with them; because all parties agreed upon certain terms and conditions which were laid down within said contract between both parties; then those same terms must be upheld regardless if payments have been made or not as per those contractual obligations entered into between both parties at hand - thus ruling in favor of Atkinson who was awarded compensation accordingly for his losses suffered due to said fire incident involving his property located within Richmond city limits .

In Atkinson v. The Mutual Assurance Society Against Fire, on Buildings of the State of Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant insurance company. He reasoned that there were material facts in dispute and thus it was inappropriate for the court to decide this case without hearing evidence from both sides. Furthermore, he noted that if these disputed facts had been heard by a jury then they may have come to a different conclusion than what was decided by summary judgment. In his view, it would be unjust for either party to suffer an adverse decision based solely on legal arguments rather than factual ones presented at trial. Therefore, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that this case should not have been decided without allowing each side their opportunity to present their respective cases before a jury or other trier of fact who could weigh all relevant evidence and make an informed decision accordingly.