Grame v. Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia and the Grame family over a fire insurance policy. The Grame family had taken out a policy with the Society in 1887, and in 1889 their property was destroyed by fire. The Society refused to pay the claim, arguing that the policy had been cancelled prior to the fire. The Grame family argued that the Society had not provided them with proper notice of the cancellation, and that they had not received any notice at all. The Supreme Court agreed with the Grame family, ruling that the Society had not provided proper notice of the cancellation and that the Grame family was entitled to the full amount of the policy. The Court held that the Society was obligated to provide the Grame family with reasonable notice of the cancellation, and that the Society had failed to do so. The Court also held that the Society was liable for the full amount of the policy, as the Grame family had not received any notice of the cancellation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Grame v. Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound reasoning. He argued that a contract is not necessarily void if it contains an illegal provision; rather, only those parts of the contract which are illegal should be voided. In this case, he argued that since there were two distinct contracts between Grame and Mutual Assurance - one for insurance coverage and another for payment of premiums - they could be treated separately when determining whether or not either part was valid under state law. Since neither party had any knowledge or intent to violate state law at the time they entered into their agreement, Justice Field reasoned that each part should remain enforceable despite containing some provisions which may have been deemed invalid by subsequent judicial decisions. Therefore, he concluded that Grame should still receive compensation from Mutual Assurance as per their original agreement even though certain portions were later found to be unlawful according to state statutes.