The Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1822 that involved an insurance policy dispute between The Columbian Insurance Company and several individuals, including William Wheelright and John Hays. At issue was whether or not the defendants were liable for losses incurred by The Columbian Insurance Company due to a fire at their insured property located in Boston, Massachusetts. In its ruling, the court held that while there had been no fraud on behalf of any of the defendants, they were still responsible for paying damages to The Columbian Insurance Company as per their contract with them since it had been proven that negligence on part of one or more parties caused the fire which resulted in said losses. This decision established important precedent regarding contractual obligations and liability when it comes to insurance policies involving fires or other disasters resulting from negligence or carelessness on part of either party involved in such contracts.

In The Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a policy of insurance issued by an insurer in one state could be enforced against it in another state. The majority opinion held that such policies were not enforceable, as they violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution which requires states to give full faith and credit to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings from other states. Justice Johnson dissented on this point, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's interpretation of the clause itself, he believed that Congress had already provided for enforcement of contracts between citizens or corporations from different states through its legislation regarding bankruptcy laws. He argued further that since these laws allowed for creditors located in different states to collect debts owed them by debtors located elsewhere within their jurisdiction then surely insurers should have similar rights when seeking payment on policies issued out-of-state. Therefore Johnson concluded that enforcing such policies would not violate any constitutional provision but rather serve only "to promote justice."