In the case of Brig Struggle (Thomas Leigh, Claimant) v. The United States, Thomas Leigh claimed that he was entitled to compensation for damages sustained by his brig during a voyage from Baltimore to Jamaica in 1812. He argued that the damage was caused by an act of war committed by British forces and thus should be compensated for under the Neutrality Act of 1794. The Supreme Court disagreed with him and held that since there had been no formal declaration of war between Britain and America at the time, any acts committed against American vessels were not considered acts of war but rather privateers or pirates acting on their own authority. Therefore, they concluded that such damages could not be compensated under the Neutrality Act as it did not cover privateer attacks or piracy.

In the case of Brig Struggle (Thomas Leigh, Claimant) v. The United States, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for Thomas Leigh. According to Marshall, there was no evidence presented to show that any other party had an interest in the brig or its cargo prior to their seizure by French privateers and subsequent condemnation by a French court. Therefore, since there were no intervening interests between Leigh's ownership of the vessel and its capture by France, it was unjust for him not to be compensated for his loss due to enemy action. Furthermore, Marshall noted that even if another party did possess some sort of interest in either entity before they were seized from Leigh's possession - such as through a mortgage - then this would still not justify denying compensation because it is well established law that mortgages do not transfer title but rather only provide security against debt repayment; thus making them subordinate claims with respect to prize proceedings.