Alfred Savignac brought a case against Abraham Garrison to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over a contract between them in which Savignac agreed to build and deliver two steamboats for Garrison at an agreed upon price. After completing one boat, Savignac refused to finish building the second boat until he received payment from Garrison for both boats. The Supreme Court ruled that since there was no evidence that either party had breached their agreement, it could not be determined who should receive damages or if any were due at all. They concluded that as long as neither party had broken their part of the contract, they would have to abide by its terms and conditions regardless of whether or not they felt it was fair or just.

In the case of Alfred Savignac v. Abraham Garrison, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He believed that it was necessary for an individual to be provided with notice and opportunity to be heard before their property could be taken away from them by another party. In this particular case, there had been no such notification or hearing prior to taking possession of Savignac's land; thus, Curtis concluded that Garrison should have been barred from obtaining title to it as a result of his actions. Furthermore, he noted that even if Garrison did possess some sort of legal right over the property at issue here, any judgment rendered against Savignac would still need to take into account all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding its acquisition in order for justice to prevail. Ultimately, Justice Curtis' dissent highlighted how important due process is when dealing with matters involving private property rights and emphasized why individuals must always receive proper notice and opportunity for defense before they can suffer any losses as a result thereof.