The Steamboat New World, Edward Minturn, William Menzie and William H. Webb were claimants and appellants in a case against Frederick G. King. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the defendants had an obligation to pay damages for goods that were lost when the steamboat sank due to negligence on behalf of its crew members. The court found that there was no legal basis for holding the defendants liable as they did not have any control over or knowledge of what happened with regards to how their property was handled by those responsible for operating it at sea. Furthermore, even if they had known about potential risks associated with sailing such a vessel, they would not be held accountable since it is impossible to predict all possible dangers while navigating open waters. Ultimately, the court concluded that no liability could be assigned in this instance as none of parties involved acted negligently or recklessly enough so as warrant compensation from another party's losses incurred during transit via waterway transportation services

In The Steamboat New World, Edward Minturn, William Menzie, and William H. Webb (Claimants and Appellants) v. Frederick G. King (Appellee), the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the Claimants and Appellants because they had a valid claim to ownership of the steamboat New World under maritime law due to their possession of it prior to its seizure by King's agent. The dissent noted that while there was no dispute as to who owned or possessed title at any given time before or after seizure, this did not necessarily mean that title could be transferred without legal process; rather, it meant only that whoever held actual possession had superior right over those claiming through other titles such as mortgagees or lienholders. Furthermore, since there was no evidence presented showing how long either party had been in possession prior to seizure nor whether either party ever acquired title from another source during this period - both parties were equally entitled to possessory rights until one could prove otherwise - thus making it impossible for King's agent alone determine which party rightfully owned the vessel when he seized it on behalf of his principal without further inquiry into each respective claimant’s case first being made by a competent tribunal with jurisdiction over such matters