In the case of Samuel D. Harris, Marshal of the United States for the District of Massachusetts vs. James D'Wolf Jr., a dispute arose over whether or not certain goods seized by Harris were liable to forfeiture under federal law. The court held that they were not and reversed an earlier decision from a lower court which had found them liable to forfeiture on account of their having been imported in violation of customs laws. In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that while it was true that such imports violated federal law, this did not necessarily mean they should be forfeited as there must also be proof that those responsible intended to evade payment duties due upon importation in order for liability to attach. Since no such evidence existed in this case, it was determined that no forfeiture could take place and thus judgment was entered in favor of D'Wolf Jr..

In the case of Samuel D. Harris, Marshal of the United States for the District of Massachusetts vs James D'Wolf Jr., a dissenting opinion was offered by Justice Story. He argued that although Congress had authorized an action to be brought against those who had violated certain laws, it did not authorize any particular form or mode in which such actions should be brought. Therefore, he concluded that since no specific form or mode was prescribed by Congress, then it must have been left to each court's discretion as to how they would proceed with such cases and what forms were necessary for their proceedings. Furthermore, Justice Story maintained that if a court found itself unable to proceed without some additional forms than those already provided by law then they could create new ones as needed so long as these new forms did not conflict with existing statutes or common law principles.