Hosford v. Germania Fire Insurance Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hosford, and the defendant, Germania Fire Insurance Company. Hosford had purchased a fire insurance policy from Germania, and when his property was destroyed by fire, he sought to recover the amount of the policy from Germania. Germania refused to pay, arguing that the policy was void because Hosford had failed to disclose a prior fire on the property. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and that Germania was obligated to pay the amount of the policy. The Court reasoned that the prior fire was not material to the risk assumed by Germania, and that the policy was not rendered void by Hosford's failure to disclose it. The Court also held that the policy was not rendered void by the fact that Hosford had made false statements in the application for the policy. The Court concluded that Germania was liable for the amount of the policy, and that Hosford was entitled to recover the amount of the policy from Germania.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hosford v. Germania Fire Insurance Company, stating that the Court should not have granted a new trial to the plaintiff. He argued that there was no error of law or fact which would justify granting a new trial and noted that it is only when an issue has been decided against clear evidence or by misdirection of law that such action can be taken. Furthermore, he stated that even if there had been errors committed during the original trial, they were harmless as they did not affect any substantial rights of either party nor influence the jury's verdict. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting his disagreement with granting a new trial and expressing concern over how this decision could set precedent for future cases where similar circumstances arise but are found to be insufficient grounds for reversal on appeal.