This Supreme Court case involved Robert H. McCready and other claimants of the steamboat Bay State, her tackle, machinery, etc., appealing against Goldsmith, Wells and others. The claimants argued that they were entitled to a salvage award for their services in rescuing the vessel from destruction by fire on Lake Erie in 1853. However, the defendants contended that no such award was due as it had been extinguished by an act of Congress passed shortly after the incident occurred which prohibited any payment or allowance being made out of public funds for similar services rendered prior to its passage. After considering both sides’ arguments carefully, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Goldsmith et al., finding that although there may have been some merit to McCready's claim under general maritime law principles at common law before Congress acted upon it; nevertheless this right was superseded by Congressional action and could not be enforced thereafter.

In the dissenting opinion of Robert H. McCready and Others, Claimants of the Steamboat Bay State, Her Tackle, Machinery &c., Appellants v. Goldsmith Wells and Others, Justice Curtis argued that a maritime lien should be recognized for unpaid wages due to seamen employed on board a vessel. He reasoned that such liens were necessary in order to protect those who worked at sea from being taken advantage of by their employers as they could not easily seek legal recourse or collect payment if it was withheld from them. Furthermore, he noted that this type of lien had been recognized in other countries since ancient times and thus should be adopted by U.S courts as well so long as there is evidence proving an employee’s right to compensation for services rendered aboard a vessel owned by another party. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed that recognizing these types of liens would provide greater protection for seafarers while also ensuring fair treatment between shipowners and employees alike when it comes to wage disputes arising out of maritime contracts