The Frances, Boyer, Master case was a dispute between the claimants and Thompson & Al. over ownership of a schooner called The Frances. The claimants argued that they had purchased the vessel from one John Smith in 1810 and were thus entitled to its possession. However, Thompson & Al., who claimed to have bought it from Smith in 1812, sought legal action against them for trespass on their property rights as owners of the ship. After much deliberation by both sides in court proceedings, it was ultimately decided that since there was no proof or documentation presented regarding either party's purchase agreement with Smith prior to his death in 1813 - which would have been necessary for establishing title - neither side could be declared rightful owner of The Frances; instead, all claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of evidence.

In the case of The Frances, Boyer, Master (Thompson and al. Claimants.), the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would grant relief from an existing contract between two parties. The majority opinion held that Congress did have such power under its constitutional authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states. However, the dissent argued that this was not within their powers as it interfered with private contracts already in place and thus violated Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits any state or federal government from passing laws impairing contractual obligations without due process of law. Furthermore, they argued that even if Congress could pass such a law it should be done through legislation rather than by judicial decree as is being proposed here. In conclusion, while recognizing Congress' broad powers over interstate commerce they maintained that this particular action exceeded those boundaries set forth in the Constitution and thus should not be allowed to stand.