Korn and Wisemiller v. The Mutual Assurance Society Against Fire on Buildings of the State of Virginia was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1810. The plaintiffs, Korn and Wisemiller, had taken out an insurance policy with the defendant for their property located in Alexandria, Virginia. When their property burned down due to a fire that started outside of their building but spread to it, they sought compensation from the defendant for damages incurred as per their policy agreement. However, despite having paid premiums on time and without interruption since taking out the policy two years prior, they were denied coverage because there was no clause explicitly stating that fires originating outside would be covered under such circumstances. In its ruling on this case, the court held that when parties enter into an insurance contract like this one where both sides are aware of all relevant facts pertaining to potential risks associated with said contract then any reasonable interpretation should include external causes unless otherwise specified or excluded within its terms; thus affirming Korn and Wisemiller's right to receive payment from The Mutual Assurance Society Against Fire on Buildings of the State of Virginia for losses suffered due to fire damage caused by an external source not mentioned in their original agreement.

In Korn and Wisemiller v. The Mutual Assurance Society Against Fire on Buildings of the State of Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction against the defendants. He reasoned that since there was no contract between them, it would be improper to grant relief for breach of such a nonexistent agreement. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been a contract between them, it could not be enforced because it violated public policy by attempting to limit liability for damages caused by fire beyond what is allowed under state law. Finally, Marshall argued that granting injunctive relief would set a dangerous precedent whereby individuals could use courts to enforce contracts without any legal basis or authority from either party involved in the dispute.