In the case of Augustus Hemmenway, Claimant of the Ship Independence v. William B. Fisher, Hemmenway sued Fisher for damages to his ship caused by a collision with another vessel owned and operated by Fisher. The Supreme Court held that when two vessels collide in navigable waters, each is liable for its own negligence regardless of which vessel was at fault or whether both were negligent. Furthermore, it was determined that any damage done to either vessel must be paid out from their respective owners’ insurance policies as opposed to being shared between them; this ruling established what has come to be known as “the rule of several liability” in maritime law. In addition, the court also found that if one party could prove they had taken reasonable steps towards avoiding an accident then they would not be held responsible even if some damage still occurred due to their actions – thus establishing a precedent for comparative negligence in such cases going forward.

In Augustus Hemmenway, Claimant of the Ship Independence v. William B. Fisher, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel that had been sold by its owner to pay off debts could be reclaimed by a creditor who had not received payment for his debt from the sale proceeds. The majority opinion held that since no proof existed showing that any part of the proceeds from the sale were applied to satisfy Hemmenway's claim against Fisher, he was unable to reclaim ownership of the ship and thus denied his petition for relief. In dissent, Justice Grier argued that it should have been presumed under maritime law that all creditors would receive equal treatment in such cases and therefore Hemmenway should have been allowed to reclaim ownership as long as he provided sufficient evidence proving his claim against Fisher prior to or at least concurrent with when title passed on from him upon sale of said vessel.