The Patapsco Insurance Company brought a case against John and Wright Southgate to the Supreme Court. The company argued that they had issued a policy of insurance on certain goods belonging to the defendants, which were damaged by fire while in transit from Baltimore to Philadelphia. The defendants denied liability for the loss, claiming that it was caused by an act of God or public enemies. In their defense, they cited an exception clause in the policy which excluded losses due to these causes. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of Patapsco Insurance Company because there was no evidence presented that proved either cause as responsible for causing damage and thus voiding their responsibility under contract law.

The dissenting opinion in The Patapsco Insurance Company, Plaintiffs in Error vs. John Southgate and Wright Southgate, Defendants in Error is that the court should not have granted a new trial to the defendants. The majority of justices held that since there was an error made by the jury during their deliberations on damages awarded to the plaintiffs, they were entitled to a new trial. However, Justice Story argued that this decision was too lenient as it would allow for parties who are found guilty of breach of contract or other wrongs to be able to escape liability simply because there may have been some mistake made by jurors when assessing damages due from them. He further stated that if such errors were allowed then it could lead people into believing they can commit wrongful acts with impunity and without consequence which would ultimately undermine justice itself.