In the case of Robert Gue v. The Tide Water Canal Company, appellant Robert Gue sued the canal company for damages to his property caused by their negligence in constructing a dam across a stream that ran through his land. He argued that he was entitled to compensation due to an act passed by Congress which gave him exclusive rights over the watercourse and its use. The Supreme Court held that while Gue had been granted exclusive rights over the watercourse, this did not give him any right or authority over how it was used by others who were also authorized under law to make use of it. Furthermore, they found no evidence of negligence on behalf of the canal company and thus dismissed Gue's claim for damages against them as unfounded.

In the case of Robert Gue v. The Tide Water Canal Company, Justice Nelson delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his property taken by the defendant company. He reasoned that since it was established law that private property could not be taken without just compensation, and since there had been no agreement between the parties as to what constituted such compensation, then it must follow that Mr. Gue should receive some form of payment from the canal company for their use of his land. Furthermore, he noted that while this particular case involved only a small amount of money at stake, similar cases involving larger amounts would have far-reaching implications if they were decided against those whose rights had been violated in such manner. Therefore, Justice Nelson concluded with an admonition to uphold constitutional principles and protect individual rights whenever possible when deciding these types of cases going forward.