In Graves and Barnewall v. Boston Marine Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract of marine insurance had been breached by the insurer. The insureds were merchants who had purchased an insurance policy from the defendant company in order to protect their goods while they were being transported overseas. When some of their cargo was lost at sea due to a storm, they sought compensation from the insurer but it refused on grounds that there had been no breach of contract as per its terms and conditions. The Supreme Court found in favor of the insureds, ruling that since all parties involved knew about potential risks associated with maritime transport when entering into this agreement, any losses incurred should be covered by the insurer regardless if these risks materialized or not.

In the case of Graves and Barnewall v. Boston Marine Insurance Company, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted judgment for the defendant on a technicality. He maintained that it was unfair to deny recovery to plaintiffs who had acted in good faith and were unaware of any defect or ambiguity in their policy. Furthermore, he argued that if there was an ambiguity present, then it should be construed against the insurer as they drafted it and are more familiar with its terms than those insured under such policies. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall believed that justice would best be served by allowing recovery for Graves and Barnewall since they had no knowledge of any potential defects or ambiguities when entering into their insurance agreement with Boston Marine Insurance Company.