In United States v. George M'Daniel, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant could be convicted of larceny for taking goods from a vessel that was stranded on shore due to bad weather and not yet in port. The court held that the act of taking property without permission constituted larceny even if it was taken from a ship before it had reached its destination. The court reasoned that since the owner still retained title to his property while at sea, any unauthorized removal would constitute an unlawful trespass against him and thus amount to theft under common law principles. Furthermore, because there were no legal exceptions or defenses available in this case, M'Daniel's conviction should stand despite his argument that he did not intend to commit theft when he took possession of the items in question.

In United States v. M'Daniel, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense that occurred before Congress passed a law making it illegal. The majority opinion held that the defendant could not be convicted because there was no law in place at the time of his alleged crime prohibiting such conduct. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had impliedly made such offenses criminal by passing laws punishing similar acts committed after its enactment. He reasoned that if Congress intended to punish certain types of behavior then they should also apply retroactively so as to punish those who engaged in similar activities prior to its passage. Furthermore, he argued that allowing people like M'Daniel off without punishment would create a dangerous precedent for future offenders and undermine public confidence in government authority and justice more generally.