The Columbian Insurance Company of Alexandria brought a case against Joseph W. Lawrence, survivor of Lawrence & Poindexter. The company had issued an insurance policy to the partnership and after their dissolution, sued for payment on the policy from Mr. Lawrence as he was now responsible for it due to his survival of the partnership. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Lawrence stating that since he did not sign or agree to be bound by any terms stated in the policy, he could not be held liable for its payment even though he was technically responsible for it following dissolution of the partnership agreement between himself and his partner Poindexter.

In The Columbian Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Joseph W. Lawrence, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a policy issued by an insurance company could be assigned without the consent of the insurer. Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there should be no restriction on assigning policies because it would interfere with commerce and impede individuals from transferring their rights as they saw fit. He reasoned that if parties were allowed to assign contracts freely, then insurers would have more incentive to issue policies since they knew that those policies could easily be transferred or sold for cash value when needed. Furthermore, Justice Story noted that any restrictions on assignment would create uncertainty and confusion in commercial transactions since it is not always clear who has title over certain property or goods at any given time due to multiple transfers between different parties involved in a transaction chain. Ultimately, he concluded his dissent by stating that allowing free transferability of contracts will benefit both insurers and insureds alike while also promoting economic growth through increased trade activity among merchants throughout the country