Samuel Swartwout was the plaintiff in error in a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. He argued that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property by John Gihon and others, who were acting as agents for the Collector of Customs at New York City. The dispute centered around whether or not certain duties imposed on goods imported into New York should have been paid to Swartwout instead of being collected by Gihon and his associates. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled against Swartwout, finding that he did not have any legal right to collect those duties due to an act passed by Congress which authorized Gihon's actions. This decision established a precedent whereby customs officers could seize goods without having to pay compensation if they believed them liable for duty payments under federal law.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment issued by a circuit court in New York should be reversed. The plaintiff argued that the circuit court had erred in its decision and that it should have found for him instead of against him. The majority opinion held that the circuit court's ruling was correct and affirmed it. However, Justice McLean dissented from this opinion on two grounds: first, he argued that there were errors made during trial which affected the outcome; second, he believed that even if these errors did not affect the outcome of trial itself they still warranted reversal because they showed an abuse of discretion by the lower courts. He concluded his dissent with an admonition to future judges to take care when exercising their judicial power so as not to trample upon rights secured under law or prejudice parties before them without cause or reason.