The Cleveland Insurance Company (appellant) brought a case against George Reed, Juliet S. Reed, James H. Rogers and the Milwaukie and Mississippi Railroad Company (respondents). The appellant argued that they had issued an insurance policy to the respondents for their property located in Wisconsin which was destroyed by fire. The appellant claimed that they were not liable under the terms of the policy because it did not cover losses caused by fire or any other peril unless specifically stated in writing on the face of said policy. However, after reviewing all evidence presented at trial, including testimony from witnesses who testified as to what was agreed upon when taking out said policy with regards to coverage for fires and other perils, it was determined that there had been an oral agreement between both parties regarding such coverage; thus making them liable for damages resulting from this incident according to contract law principles established at common law. Therefore, judgment was rendered in favor of respondents and against appellant accordingly.

In the case of The Cleveland Insurance Company v. George Reed, Juliet S. Reed, James H. Rogers and The Milwaukie and Mississippi Railroad Company, Chief Justice Taney wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred by allowing an insurance company to sue another corporation for damages caused by a breach of contract without first requiring proof that the insured party was actually damaged or injured as a result of said breach. He further argued that it would be unjust to allow such claims when there is no evidence showing any actual harm suffered by either party due to the other's actions or omissions. Furthermore, he contended that if an insurance company were allowed to bring suit against another corporation without having established its own liability for damages then this could lead to "unlimited litigation" between corporations with little benefit being gained from such suits beyond enriching lawyers who are paid on contingency fees based upon successful outcomes in court cases they litigate on behalf of their clients.