John Charles Fremont, appellant, brought a case before the United States Supreme Court in 1854. The dispute centered around whether or not the government had to pay for improvements made by Fremont on land he purchased from them. Specifically, he argued that since his purchase was done under an act of Congress which allowed him to make such improvements and receive compensation for them after sale, then they should be obligated to reimburse him for those costs. The court ultimately ruled against Fremont's claim and held that while it may have been within his rights as a purchaser of public lands to make such improvements with expectation of reimbursement at some point in time; however this did not mean that the government was legally bound to do so without any further action taken by either party.

In the case of John Charles Fremont v. The United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a private individual could be held liable for damages caused by his negligence in failing to properly survey public lands he had been contracted to do so. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that Fremont could not be held liable as there was no legal precedent or statute which allowed for such liability at that time. Justice McLean dissented from this opinion and argued that it should have been up to Congress - rather than the courts - to determine if such liability existed and what form it would take. He further argued that even though there may not have been any existing laws on point, common law principles of tortious responsibility should apply in this situation since they were applicable when dealing with similar matters involving private individuals who acted negligently while performing their contractual obligations. Ultimately, Justice McLean felt strongly enough about his dissenting opinion that he wrote a separate concurring opinion outlining why he disagreed with majority's ruling and how Congress needed to step in and provide clarity on these issues going forward.