The New York and Virginia Steamship Company, owners of the steamer Roanoke, appealed a case in which Ezra Calderwood, Thomas C. Bartlett, Dexter Carleton, Joshua Norwood, Philander Carleton Enos Cooper and Seth Cooper had filed a libel against them. The libellants claimed that they were passengers on board the steamer when it was wrecked off Cape Hatteras due to negligence by the captain or crew members of the vessel. They sought damages for their losses as well as compensation for any injuries sustained during this incident. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants (the ship's owners) because there was no evidence presented that proved negligence on behalf of anyone associated with operating or managing the vessel at fault for its wrecking. Furthermore, even if someone had been negligent while running or maintaining it prior to its sinking; such an act would not be considered "willful misconduct" under maritime law since it did not involve intentional harm towards another person nor property damage caused by recklessness or carelessness from those responsible for operating/maintaining said vessel before its sinking occurred

In the case of The New York and Virginia Steamship Company, Owners of the Steamer Roanoke v. Ezra Calderwood et al., Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the libellants had established their right to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of negligence on behalf of the steamship company. He disagreed with the majority’s ruling that there was no evidence presented by either party to establish liability or causation between any act or omission on part of the steamship company and injury suffered by libellants. In his view, it was clear from testimony provided at trial that there were numerous instances where negligence could have been found if only proper consideration had been given to all relevant facts. Furthermore, he noted that even though some witnesses may not have explicitly stated they believed negligence occurred, this did not mean such an inference should be excluded from consideration when determining whether damages should be awarded against respondents.