In the Supreme Court case of Abraham Rich and James Harris, Claimants of the Ship Martha, her Tackle, Apparel and Furniture v. Charles Lambert and Robert Lambert, Copartners Trading under the Firm of Lambert & Brother and Others (1851), Rich and Harris appealed a lower court decision that denied them compensation for damages to their ship caused by an act of negligence on behalf of the defendants. The claimants argued that they were entitled to full payment for all losses suffered as a result from this negligent act. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Rich and Harris finding that they were indeed entitled to full compensation for any damage done due to negligence on behalf of those responsible. This ruling established precedent which has been used since then when determining liability in cases involving maritime law or other similar situations where one party is found liable for another's loss or injury due to their own actions or omissions.

In the case of Abraham Rich and James Harris, claimants of the ship Martha, her tackle, apparel and furniture v. Charles Lambert and Robert Lambert copartners trading under the firm of Lambert & Brother as well as others, a dissenting opinion was expressed by Justice McLean. He argued that although there were some errors in how the lower court handled certain issues related to admiralty law such as jurisdiction over foreign vessels or whether an action could be brought against non-residents; these matters did not affect their decision on this particular case. In his view it should have been sufficient for them to decide based on established principles regarding maritime contracts which he believed had been violated by both parties in this dispute. Therefore he would have reversed the judgement made by the lower court ruling in favor of Rich & Harris instead