In Caze and Richaud v. The Baltimore Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract of insurance between two parties was valid when it had been made without consideration. In this case, the plaintiffs purchased an insurance policy from the defendant for their ship and cargo but did not pay any money in exchange for it. The court held that although there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the contract, they were still bound by its terms as long as both parties agreed to them willingly and knowingly. This decision established that contracts can be legally binding even if no money is exchanged upon signing them so long as all involved are aware of what they are agreeing to do or provide in return for something else.

In Caze and Richaud v. The Baltimore Insurance Company, Chief Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant insurance company. He noted that there were several issues of fact at play in this case, including whether or not the plaintiffs had provided sufficient notice of their claim before filing suit against the insurer. Because these facts could only be determined by a jury trial, Marshall believed it was premature for the court to grant summary judgment without allowing those facts to be heard first. Furthermore, he argued that even if all other elements of an actionable contract existed between parties—which was still disputed—the issue of timely notification would remain unresolved until tried by a jury. As such, he concluded that granting summary judgment on this basis was inappropriate and urged his colleagues to reverse their decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with his dissent.