Charles A. Davis, the consul of the King of Saxony, brought a case against Isaac Packard, Henry Disdier and William Morphy in an effort to recover money owed from a contract between them. The contract was for goods that were shipped from France to New York City on behalf of Davis. When they arrived in New York City, Packard refused to pay for them due to their damaged condition upon arrival. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that since there was no evidence presented as proof that the damage occurred during transit or before delivery at port, it could not be determined who should bear responsibility for payment and thus dismissed the case without prejudice. This ruling established precedent regarding contracts involving international shipments where damages occur after leaving foreign ports but prior to arriving at destination ports within United States jurisdiction; namely that if no proof is provided as evidence indicating when or how such damages occurred then neither party can be held liable under U.S law unless further investigation is conducted by other means outside court proceedings

In the case of Charles A. Davis, Consul of the King of Saxony v. Isaac Packard, Henry Disdier and William Morphy, Davis argued that he was entitled to a judgment against Packard for goods sold and delivered by him in violation of an act prohibiting such sales without license from the United States government. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument because it found that there was no evidence presented to prove that any contract existed between them or any consideration given on either side for such agreement; thus rendering it void under common law principles. Furthermore, they held that even if a contract had been formed between them prior to the passage of said act then still no action could be maintained as Congress did not intend to give retrospective effect when passing laws which would affect existing contracts unless expressly stated otherwise within those acts themselves. Therefore, since neither party provided sufficient proof nor did Congress provide clear direction regarding how pre-existing contracts should be treated under its new legislation then both parties were left without remedy in this particular instance and therefore denied relief from court judgement accordingly