Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Company of Baltimore was a Supreme Court case decided in 1915. The case involved a dispute between the Consolidated Gas Company of Baltimore and the Gibbs family over the ownership of a gas meter. The Gibbs family had purchased a house in Baltimore that was serviced by the Consolidated Gas Company. When the family moved out of the house, they removed the gas meter from the premises and took it with them. The Consolidated Gas Company sued the Gibbs family for the value of the meter, claiming that the meter was their property and that the family had no right to remove it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Consolidated Gas Company, finding that the meter was the property of the company and that the Gibbs family had no right to remove it. The Court held that the company had a right to protect its property and that the family had no right to take it without permission. The Court also held that the company had a right to be compensated for the value of the meter. This case established the principle that a company has a right to protect its property and to be compensated for any losses it suffers due to the unauthorized removal of its property.

In the dissenting opinion of Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Company of Baltimore, Justice Field argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the contract between Gibbs and Consolidated Gas Company. He believed that under Maryland law, which governed this case, any ambiguity in a contract should be interpreted against its drafter - in this instance being Consolidated Gas Company. Furthermore, he noted that while it is true that contracts are to be construed according to their plain meaning when possible; however if there is an ambiguity present then extrinsic evidence may be used to determine what parties intended by entering into such agreement. In his view, since there were ambiguities within the language of the contract at hand here – as evidenced by both sides having different interpretations – then extrinsic evidence should have been allowed so as to properly interpret and enforce it accordingly.