In the Briggs v. United States case of 1891, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and insurance claims. The plaintiff, Briggs, was an owner of a ship that had been damaged during its voyage due to alleged negligence by the crew. He filed an insurance claim for damages but it was denied by his insurer who argued that they were not liable because the damage resulted from "barratry" (fraud or gross negligence) committed by the master and mariners - which was excluded in their policy agreement. The court held in favor of Briggs stating that barratry involves willful misconduct with criminal or fraudulent intent which wasn't proven in this case; mere negligence does not constitute barratry under maritime law. Therefore, insurers could not deny coverage based on these grounds.

In the dissenting opinion for Briggs v. United States, it was argued that the court erred in its interpretation of what constitutes a "false entry" under federal law regarding banking institutions. The dissenting justices believed that while Briggs' actions were unethical and dishonest, they did not technically constitute a false entry because he had not misrepresented any actual transactions or balances within the bank's books. Instead, he had merely shifted funds between accounts to give an illusion of solvency where there was none - but all transactions recorded were real and accurate as individual entries. They contended this fell into a gray area outside the scope of existing legislation at that time, thus making his conviction unjust according to their interpretation of law.