In Oliver v. The Maryland Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a contract between two parties must be interpreted according to its plain language and not by what either party may have intended or expected. This case arose when William Oliver sued The Maryland Insurance Company for failing to pay him $1,000 after his ship was lost at sea while insured with them. He argued that he should receive payment because it was their intention to cover any losses due to perils of the seas, but they refused on grounds that his policy only covered losses caused by enemies or pirates. In ruling in favor of The Maryland Insurance Company, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that contracts are binding based on their written terms and cannot be altered simply because one party had different expectations than what is actually written in the agreement.

Justice Johnson delivered the dissenting opinion in Oliver v. The Maryland Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the contract between the parties. He argued that while it is true that contracts should be interpreted according to their plain language, this does not mean they should be read so literally as to ignore any reasonable implications or consequences of such an interpretation. In this case, he argued, if one were to interpret the contract as written without considering its practical effects and implications then it would lead to absurd results which could not have been intended by either party when entering into said agreement. Therefore, Justice Johnson concluded that a more liberal construction must be given in order for justice and equity to prevail in this matter.