The Steamboat New Philadelphia case was a dispute between the Camden & Amboy Company, claimants and Brady, libellant. The steamboat had been seized by the United States government for alleged violations of neutrality laws during the Civil War. The claimants argued that they were not liable for any damages caused by their vessel as it was under contract with another party at the time of seizure. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney ruled in favor of Brady on grounds that there is no exception from liability when an owner contracts out his vessel to another party; thus making them responsible for any damages incurred while under contract. This ruling established a precedent which has since become known as “the doctrine of privity” – meaning that owners are still liable even if they have contracted out their vessels to other parties.

In the dissenting opinion of The Steamer New Philadelphia case, Justice Nelson argued that the court should have found in favor of Brady. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Brady had a valid lien on the steamer and its cargo for his services as an engineer. Furthermore, he noted that it was not necessary for him to produce any additional documents or testimony beyond what he already provided in order to establish his claim. In conclusion, Justice Nelson felt strongly enough about this issue to dissent from the majority decision and argue in favor of granting Brady's claim against The Steamer New Philadelphia and its owners.