In the case of United States to the Use of Hine v. Morse and Others, Executors of Clarke (1910), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract made by an officer in charge of a lighthouse construction project on behalf of the U.S. government was legally binding when it had not been formally approved by higher authorities within the Department of Treasury as required under federal law at that time. The court ruled that even though such approval had not been obtained, if there is evidence showing that work has been performed under this contract and accepted by government officials responsible for overseeing its execution, then it can be inferred that these officials have ratified this agreement implicitly through their actions. Therefore, they concluded that contractors who fulfilled their obligations based on good faith reliance upon assurances given by those acting with apparent authority should not be left uncompensated due to internal administrative oversights or failures.

In the dissenting opinion for UNITED STATES TO THE USE OF HINE v. MORSE AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS OF CLARKE, 1910, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Morse and others liable for Clarke's debt was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were no legal grounds to hold them accountable as they had not personally guaranteed or assumed responsibility for Clarke’s debts. They contended that while Morse and others may have been executors of Clarke’s estate, this did not automatically make them liable for his financial obligations unless explicitly stated in their agreement with him. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of certain contractual terms used by the majority which led to their conclusion about liability. The dissenters felt these interpretations were erroneous and unjustly imposed a burden on Morse and others who should not be held responsible under existing laws.