The Steamer Oregon, Roger A. Heirn, Master and Part-Owner (Appellant) v. Joseph and Francis Rocca was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1855. The Appellant had filed suit against the Respondents for damages incurred when their vessel collided with another steamship owned by them while they were navigating on Lake Michigan near Chicago in 1853. The Appellant argued that the collision occurred due to negligence of one or both of the Respondents’ vessels; however, the lower court found that there was no evidence to support this claim and dismissed it without prejudice. On appeal to the US Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion affirming dismissal of Appellants’ complaint as he found that there was insufficient proof presented at trial which would have allowed a jury to find either party liable for damages caused by negligence or fault on behalf of either vessel involved in this incident. Ultimately, neither party could be held responsible for any losses suffered as a result of this accident since no clear evidence existed proving liability on either side's part

In the case of The Steamer Oregon, Roger A. Heirn, Master and Part-Owner v. Joseph and Francis Rocca, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless it is found to be invalid or illegal in some way. In this particular case, there was an agreement between Heirn and the Roccas for a voyage from San Francisco to Panama with cargo on board belonging to both parties; however, when they arrived at their destination only part of the cargo had been delivered due to damage sustained during transit. The majority opinion held that since no specific terms were included in the contract regarding damages caused by perils of navigation then neither party could recover any losses incurred as a result; however, Justice McLean dissented arguing that such an interpretation would render contracts meaningless if all risks associated with them were not taken into account before signing them off. Furthermore he stated that while it may have been impossible for either party to anticipate every possible risk involved in such transactions they should still be able to rely on each other’s good faith when entering into agreements like these ones so long as nothing within them is deemed unlawful or immoral by law or public policy standards