The Ocean Insurance Company brought a case against William Polleys in the Supreme Court. The company argued that they had issued a policy to Polleys for goods he was shipping from New York to Liverpool, and that when the ship carrying his cargo sank, he failed to provide them with sufficient proof of loss. They sought reimbursement for their losses as well as damages due to breach of contract. In response, Polleys argued that there were mitigating circumstances which prevented him from providing adequate documentation; namely, an act of God caused by bad weather at sea during the voyage. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Polleys on grounds that it would be unjust and unreasonable for him to have been held liable under such conditions beyond his control.

In the case of The Ocean Insurance Company vs. William Polleys, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be interpreted in its plain and ordinary meaning. The majority opinion held that an ambiguous clause in the contract could be interpreted to mean something other than what it said on its face, but Justice McLean argued that this interpretation would lead to uncertainty and confusion when interpreting contracts. He further argued that if courts were allowed to interpret clauses differently from their plain language, then it would open up opportunities for fraud or abuse by one party taking advantage of another's ignorance or lack of understanding about legal matters. Therefore, he concluded that contracts should only be interpreted according to their literal terms and not based on any extraneous evidence or circumstances surrounding them at the time they were made.