In Keogh v. Orient Fire Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a fire insurance policy issued by the defendant, Orient Fire Insurance Company, was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Keogh, had purchased the policy from Orient Fire Insurance Company and had paid the premiums. However, when a fire occurred and Keogh sought to recover the amount of the policy, Orient Fire Insurance Company refused to pay, claiming that the policy was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the policy had been issued in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was issued, and that the policy had been properly executed. The Court further noted that the policy had been accepted by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had paid the premiums. Therefore, the Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the amount of the policy.

In Keogh v. Orient Fire Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a fire insurance policy issued by the defendant to cover certain property of the plaintiff had been validly cancelled. The majority opinion held that it had not been and awarded damages to the plaintiff for breach of contract. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: first, he argued that there were no facts in evidence which showed any fraud or bad faith on behalf of either party; second, he contended that even if such facts existed they would be insufficient to invalidate an otherwise lawful cancellation under New York law as applied at the time when this case arose. He concluded his dissent by noting that while it may have been unjust for one party to take advantage of another’s mistake or ignorance in order to cancel a contract without cause, “it is not within our province…to make new laws upon such subjects” but rather only interpret existing ones.