In this case, George Rundle and William Griffiths, trustees of the estate of John Savage, deceased, brought a suit against The Delaware and Raritan Canal Company. At issue was whether or not the company had to pay damages for flooding that occurred on land owned by Savage’s estate. The court found in favor of the canal company because they determined that it was an act of God which caused the flooding and therefore could not be held liable for any damages incurred as a result. Furthermore, there were no contractual obligations between them which would have required payment from either party in such circumstances. This ruling set precedent regarding liability when natural disasters occur on property belonging to another person or entity.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company had a right to take possession of John Savage's land for their canal project. He believed that since they were acting in accordance with an act passed by Congress, they should be allowed to do so without compensation from Savage's estate. Furthermore, he argued that if the company was not able to take possession of the land then it would impede on its ability to complete its project which could have negative consequences for public welfare. In conclusion, Justice McLean felt strongly that allowing companies like The Delaware and Raritan Canal Company access to private property is necessary in order for them fulfill their obligations as outlined by law and benefit society as a whole.