In the case of L'Invincible, The Consul of France and Hill & M'Cobb were claimants in a dispute over a French vessel that had been seized by an American privateer. The Supreme Court held that the seizure was illegal because it violated international law as well as U.S. neutrality laws which prohibited citizens from engaging in hostilities against foreign nations with whom they were at peace. Furthermore, the court found that since there was no evidence to show any wrongdoing on behalf of either claimant, their property rights should be respected and damages awarded for wrongful seizure and detention of their vessel. This decision established important precedent regarding respect for neutral vessels during wartime and set forth principles governing how such disputes should be resolved going forward.

In the case of L'Invincible, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a French ship and its cargo were rightfully seized by an American privateer during the War of 1812. The majority opinion held that since France had not declared war against America at the time, it was illegal for an American vessel to seize a French one. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Story argued that although France may not have officially declared war on America, they had been actively aiding Britain in their fight against America which made them enemies under international law. He further contended that even if this wasn't true then there should still be some form of compensation given to those who suffered losses due to such seizures as long as they could prove their innocence and loyalty towards America. In conclusion he stated that while he agreed with much of what was said by his colleagues regarding neutrality laws between nations, these laws did not apply when dealing with enemy vessels or goods taken from them during wartime.