This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between Philo Chamberlain and John H. Crawford, claimants of the Propeller Ogdensburgh, and Eber B. Ward and Stephen Clement, survivors of Samuel Ward deceased. The claimants argued that they were entitled to the proceeds from an insurance policy taken out on the vessel by its former owner as it had been sold before being lost at sea. However, the respondents claimed that since their father was still listed as owner when it was lost they should be entitled to those funds instead. After considering both sides' arguments in detail, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Chamberlain and Crawford due to evidence showing that ownership had legally transferred prior to loss despite not having been registered with customs yet.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Curtis argued that the claimants had a valid title to the propeller Ogdensburgh and should have been allowed to keep it. He believed that they had acquired ownership through an equitable conversion when they purchased it from its former owner in exchange for their promissory note. According to Justice Curtis, since there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith on behalf of either party involved in the transaction, then all parties were bound by its terms and conditions. Furthermore, he noted that even if Samuel Ward's estate did not receive full payment for his vessel at the time of sale due to insolvency issues with one of Chamberlain's partners who co-signed on the note, this would still not invalidate their claim as purchasers because such matters are generally resolved between creditors without involving third parties like Eber B. Ward and Stephen Clement who were attempting to reclaim possession over Ogdensburgh after it had already changed hands twice before them.