In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Eli S. Prescott et al., the government was suing for a breach of contract by defendants, who had been hired to build and deliver two steamboats in 1841. The government argued that they had paid $20,000 for the boats but only received one boat which was not up to specifications as outlined in their agreement with the defendants. The court found that although there were some discrepancies between what was promised and what was delivered, it did not rise to a level where damages should be awarded against the defendants since they made an effort to fulfill their obligations under their contract with reasonable diligence and good faith. Ultimately, it ruled in favor of the defendants due to lack of sufficient evidence proving any intentional wrongdoing on behalf of them or negligence on behalf of either party involved in this dispute over contractual obligations

In the case of The United States v. Eli S. Prescott et al., the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for an individual's property to be seized and sold in order to pay off debts owed by another person, even if they were related or associated with each other. This was because such a law would violate the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that private property shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." Furthermore, it was argued that this type of action constituted double jeopardy since it essentially punished someone twice for one offense - once through seizure and sale of their own property and again through payment on behalf of another person who may have already been convicted or otherwise held liable for their debt obligations. Finally, it was contended that allowing such seizures would lead to arbitrary decisions being made by government officials as there is no clear standard set forth in either statute or common law regarding when these types of actions should take place.