This Supreme Court case involved the administrator of Samuel Hazard's estate suing The New England Marine Insurance Company. At issue was whether or not a policy issued by the company to insure a vessel owned by Hazard had been validly cancelled before it sank and caused damage. The court found that, although there were some irregularities in how the cancellation was done, they did not invalidate it and thus the insurance company could not be held liable for any damages resulting from its sinking. Ultimately, this decision established that an insurer can cancel their policy if certain procedures are followed correctly even if those procedures may have been irregularly conducted at times.

In Samuel Hazard's Administrator, Plaintiff in Error v. The New England Marine Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a policy of insurance issued by an insurer is valid if it does not include the name of the insured or any other description that would identify them. The majority opinion held that such policies are invalid and unenforceable as they do not provide sufficient information for either party to know who is being insured and what risks are covered under the policy. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that there were no legal grounds for declaring such policies void since they did contain all necessary elements required by law including consideration paid by both parties and a clear statement of risk assumed by each side. He further argued that even though these contracts may be difficult to enforce due to lack of identification details about those involved, courts should still strive to uphold their validity whenever possible so long as all essential terms have been agreed upon between both parties in good faith.