The Schooner Freeman, Her Tackle, &c., Charles Hickox v. Alvah Buckingham et al was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1855. The dispute centered around ownership of the schooner and its cargo which had been seized by libellants Alvah Buckingham, Philo Buckingham, Benjamin H. Buckingham and James W. McCullok from claimant Charles Hickox who argued that he owned both vessel and cargo as per his contract with the original owner John Sargent Jr.. The court found in favor of the libellants on grounds that they were unaware of any agreement between Sargent Jr. and Hickox when they purchased it at auction for $1125; therefore their title to the property was valid under maritime law since no other party could prove superior right or title to it prior to sale at public auction.

In the case of The Schooner Freeman, Her Tackle, &c., Charles Hickox, Claimant and Appellant v. Alvah Buckingham et al., Libellants (1855), the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written if it is clear and unambiguous. In this case, there was an agreement between Charles Hickox and Alvah Buckingham to transfer ownership of a schooner from one party to another for $1,000 in cash plus “the usual allowance” for repairs. However, when Mr. Buckingham failed to pay the full amount due under the terms of their agreement upon delivery of the vessel by Mr. Hickox as promised in writing at time of sale ,Mr.Hickox sued him for breach of contract .The majority opinion held that since no specific dollar amount had been agreed upon with respect to repairs prior to execution or delivery ,therefore any such claim could not be enforced against Mr Buckinghama nd he was only liable for $1000 which he had paid already .However ,in dissent it was argued that even though no exact sum may have been specified at timeof sale but still both parties were aware what would constitute "usual allowance"for repair costs so they must honor their contractual obligations accordingly .Therefore accordingto dissenting view justice required enforcing original terms as written rather than allowing one party escape liability on technicality