In the case of John Pemberton, Liquidator of the Merchants' Insurance Company v. Edward Lockett, James G. Berret and Henry D. Johnson, Pemberton appealed to the Supreme Court for a judgment against Lockett et al., who had been appointed as commissioners by a state court in order to liquidate assets belonging to an insolvent insurance company that was under his control as liquidator. The question before the Court was whether or not these commissioners were liable for any debts incurred while they were acting on behalf of said company during their tenure as commissioners. After considering all evidence presented by both parties, it was determined that since no debt had been created prior to their appointment nor did they have authority over such matters after being appointed; therefore, they could not be held liable for any debts incurred during this period and thus dismissed Pemberton's appeal with costs assessed against him accordingly.

In the case of John Pemberton, Liquidator of the Merchants' Insurance Company v. Edward Lockett, James G. Berret and Henry D. Johnson, Justice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed Pemberton's appeal on procedural grounds because it was an important issue concerning insurance law and public policy. He noted that this case involved a dispute between two parties over whether or not certain policies issued by an insurance company were valid contracts under state law; thus, it had implications for how such disputes would be resolved in other cases involving similar issues. Furthermore, he argued that since there was no clear precedent regarding this matter from either federal or state courts at the time of trial, allowing Pemberton to proceed with his appeal could provide guidance to future litigants as well as help ensure uniformity among different jurisdictions when dealing with similar matters related to insurance law and public policy.