In the United States v. 350 Chests of Tea, Lippincott and Others were claimants in a Supreme Court case involving tea that had been seized by customs officers from a vessel owned by them. The court found that the seizure was lawful as it was made under an act of Congress which authorized such seizures when goods imported into the United States were subject to duties but not paid for at time of importation. The court also held that even though there may have been some irregularities in how the seizure occurred, they did not invalidate it because those irregularities did not affect its legality or justice. Furthermore, since no claim had yet been filed against any part of this property before its sale, all proceeds from said sale belonged to the government and could be used for public purposes only.

In The United States v. 350 Chests of Tea, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a duty imposed by Congress on imported tea could be collected from the claimants who had purchased it before its importation into the country. Justice Story delivered an opinion in which he dissented from that of Chief Justice Marshall and Justices Johnson and Thompson. He argued that since there was no evidence showing any fraud or collusion between the importer and purchasers, they should not be held liable for duties due upon goods already acquired prior to their entry into American ports. Furthermore, he maintained that if such a law were allowed to stand then it would create an unjust situation where innocent parties are made responsible for debts incurred by another person over whom they have no control or influence whatsoever. In conclusion, Justice Story concluded that while Congress has broad powers when it comes to taxation matters, those powers must still remain within constitutional limits; thus making them subject to judicial review in order to ensure fairness and justice is served at all times.