In the case of Joseph E. Montgomery et al., Claimants of the Steamer Republic, &c., Appellants v. John J. Anderson et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one party against another in court if it had not been fully executed according to its terms and conditions. The claimants argued that they were entitled to damages for breach of contract because they had already fulfilled their part of the agreement but Anderson refused to do his part due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control. The Supreme Court held that even though there may have been some performance on both sides, since neither side completed all their obligations under the contract, no actionable claim existed and therefore no damages could be awarded for breach of contract as requested by Montgomery et al.. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts which are only partially performed; namely, that such agreements cannot be enforced in court unless all parties fulfill their respective duties as outlined in them beforehand.

In the case of Joseph E. Montgomery et al., Claimants of the Steamer Republic, &c., Appellants v. John J. Anderson et al., a majority opinion was rendered in favor of the defendants and against the claimants on appeal from a Circuit Court decision that had been reversed by an appellate court. The dissenting opinion argued that there were errors made in both courts' decisions which should have resulted in judgment for appellants instead of respondents; namely, that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that any negligence or fault existed on behalf of those claiming ownership to the steamer Republic when it sank after colliding with another vessel at sea, nor did they fail to exercise due diligence as required by law prior to its sinking. Furthermore, even if some degree of fault could be attributed to them under maritime law principles applicable at this time period, such would only entitle respondents (the other vessel's owners) to partial damages rather than full compensation as awarded by both lower courts’ judgments combined with their respective opinions regarding apportionment and contributory negligence laws applicable heretofore.