The Salmon Falls Manufacturing Company brought a case against William W. Goddard in the Supreme Court of the United States. The company argued that it had been wrongfully deprived of its property by Goddard, who was acting as an agent for another party. The court found that although Goddard had acted on behalf of his principal, he was still liable for any damages caused to the manufacturing company due to his negligence or misconduct while performing his duties as an agent. Furthermore, since there were no written contracts between them and because they did not have a fiduciary relationship with each other, the court held that Goddard could be held personally responsible for any losses suffered by Salmon Falls Manufacturing Company due to his actions or omissions as their agent. This decision established precedent regarding agency law and clarified how agents can be held accountable when they fail in their duty to act responsibly on behalf of their principals.

In the dissenting opinion of The Salmon Falls Manufacturing Company v. William W. Goddard, Justice Daniel argued that the plaintiff had not proven their case and thus should not be awarded damages for breach of contract. He noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Goddard had ever agreed to pay a certain amount in exchange for goods or services provided by the company, nor did he provide any proof as to what specific terms were included in any alleged agreement between them. Furthermore, Justice Daniel stated that even if an agreement existed between them it would have been unenforceable due to its lack of specificity and consideration on both sides; therefore, he concluded that the court should find in favor of Goddard rather than awarding damages against him based solely on speculation or conjecture about what may have occurred between them prior to litigation being initiated.