The Brig Colleenberg case was a dispute between the libellant, Lawrence, and the claimants Denbreen et al. over ownership of a ship called The Brig Colleenberg. Lawrence argued that he had purchased the vessel from an auction in New York City while Denbreen et al claimed to have bought it at another sale in Philadelphia. After hearing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ruled that neither party could prove their title to be valid as they were unable to provide sufficient evidence for their claims. Therefore, no one was declared rightful owner of The Brig Colleenberg and it remained unclaimed by either side after this ruling.

In the dissenting opinion of The Brig Collenberg - Lawrence, Libellant; Denbreens et al., Claimants case, Justice Nelson argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of maritime law. He believed that under the circumstances presented in this case, it would be unjust to allow claimants to recover damages from libellant for their losses due to an alleged breach of contract. According to Justice Nelson, there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any actual agreement between parties or any consideration given by either party. Furthermore, he noted that even if such an agreement had been made and consideration exchanged between parties prior to commencement of voyage as claimed by claimants' counsels during oral arguments before court – it still could not have been enforced because all contracts involving foreign commerce must be evidenced in writing according to existing laws and regulations governing international trade. Therefore, Justice Nelson concluded that since there were no written documents proving existence of a valid contract between parties nor sufficient proof showing exchange of consideration – claims should not have been allowed against libellant and his vessel should remain free from liability for damages caused by alleged breach thereof.