The Robert Edwards Savage case was a dispute between the claimant, Robert Edwards Savage, and the United States government. The claim arose from an 1818 contract in which Savage agreed to provide supplies for Indian tribes living in Arkansas Territory. In exchange for his services, he was promised payment of $2,500 by the federal government. However, when it came time to pay him back in 1821, the U.S refused on grounds that Congress had not authorized such payments at that time. As a result of this refusal to honor its contractual obligations with Mr. Savage, he brought suit against them before Supreme Court of Mississippi Territory where judgment was entered in his favor and damages were awarded accordingly; however upon appeal by US Government before Supreme Court of United States judgement rendered by lower court reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss complaint as there is no legal remedy available under circumstances presented here due lack authorization from Congress required prior any payment being made out public funds . Ultimately , Supreme Court ruled against Mr . Savage because they found that even though he had fulfilled all requirements necessary for valid contract formation , without congressional approval no money could be paid out from public funds .

In the case of Robert Edwards Savage, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave who had been emancipated by his master and then moved to a free state could bring an action in federal court for damages. The majority opinion held that he could not because slaves were considered property under U.S. law and therefore lacked standing in federal courts. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, that slavery is contrary to natural justice; second, that it would be unjust if those who have suffered wrongs at the hands of their masters cannot seek redress through legal means due solely to their status as former slaves. He argued further that since Congress has recognized emancipation as valid under certain circumstances, it should also recognize its consequences—namely allowing freedmen access to judicial remedies when they are wronged by their former owners or others.