The Patapsco Insurance Company brought a case against John Coulter in the Supreme Court. The company argued that they had issued an insurance policy to Coulter, and he had failed to pay his premiums on time. As such, the company claimed it was entitled to cancel the policy and keep any money paid by Coulter for premiums already received. However, Coulter countered that he had made all payments as required under the terms of their agreement and thus should not be held liable for any additional charges or cancellation fees imposed by Patapsco Insurance Company. In its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Coulter; it found that there was no evidence of default on his part and therefore ruled in favor of him being able to retain coverage under his existing policy without having to pay extra fees or penalties from Patapsco Insurance Company.

In the case of The Patapsco Insurance Company, Plaintiffs in Error vs. John Coulter, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Coulter from suing for damages against the insurance company because there was no evidence that he had acted fraudulently or maliciously when filing his claim with them. Furthermore, Marshall contended that even if it were proven that Coulter had committed some form of misconduct while making his claim, this would not be sufficient grounds to grant an injunction since such action could only be taken if it were shown beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to defraud or injure the insurance company by doing so. Ultimately, Marshall concluded by stating that granting injunctions on such flimsy grounds would set a dangerous precedent and undermine public confidence in judicial proceedings and decisions made therein.