The Propeller Commerce -- Transportation Company was the claimant in a case brought before the US Supreme Court. The libellants, Fitzhugh et al., alleged that they had been wrongfully deprived of their cargo by the respondent's vessel and sought damages for its loss. The court found that as no contract existed between them, there could be no recovery on account of any wrongful act committed by the respondent's vessel or crew. However, it held that if such an agreement did exist then damages would have to be paid out according to maritime law principles. Furthermore, it also ruled that even though a contract may not have been explicitly stated between parties involved in this dispute, one can still be implied from circumstances surrounding it and thus should entitle those affected to compensation for losses suffered due to negligence or other wrongful acts committed against them.

In the dissenting opinion of The Propeller Commerce -- Transportation Company, Claimant; Fitzhugh et al., Libellants, Chief Justice Taney argued that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of existing law. He believed that Congress had not intended to grant a lien on vessels for wages due to seamen as it would be too burdensome and could lead to multiple liens being placed on one vessel. Furthermore, he noted that such a ruling would contradict prior decisions which held that no lien existed in favor of seamen against their employers unless specifically authorized by statute or contract. Thus, Chief Justice Taney concluded that the Court should have dismissed the case without deciding whether or not there was a maritime lien for unpaid wages due from an employer to its seaman employees.