The Sun Mutual Insurance Company brought a case against John S. Wright, in the use of Maxwell, Wright & Co., to recover an amount due on a policy of insurance issued by them. The court found that the company had not complied with certain conditions and regulations prescribed by law for issuing policies of insurance; therefore, they were unable to collect from Mr. Wright or his representatives under the policy in question. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision as it was determined that these conditions must be strictly observed before any action can be taken against those insured under such policies. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding compliance with legal requirements when issuing policies of insurance and collecting payments from those insured under them.

In The Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. John S. Wright, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff to cover goods in transit from New York to San Francisco had been breached when those goods were damaged during their journey due to an act of God (a storm). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Nelson argued that although it is true that there are certain risks associated with shipping goods across such a long distance and through dangerous waters, these risks should not be assumed by the insurer without explicit mention in the contract itself. He further noted that if insurers could assume liability for any risk they chose without explicitly stating so in their contracts then this would lead to unfairness and injustice as insured parties may not have known what they were agreeing too at the time of signing. Ultimately, Justice Nelson concluded that because no specific clause existed within this particular contract regarding acts of God or other natural disasters then it must be assumed that neither party intended for them to be included under its terms and thus no breach occurred on behalf of either party.