In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods, Jules Levois was the claimant. This case revolved around a dispute between the government and Levois over sixty-seven packages of dry goods that had been seized by customs officers in New York City for nonpayment of duties. The court ruled that since there were no sufficient documents to prove ownership, it could not be determined who rightfully owned them; therefore, they should remain with the government until further evidence can be provided to support either party's claim. Ultimately, this decision established an important precedent regarding property rights and how disputes are handled when ownership is unclear or contested.

Justice Grier delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the Court should not have granted a writ of error because it was issued without jurisdiction, as there had been no final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a judgment existed, the Court did not have authority to review it since Congress had not given them power to do so. In addition, Justice Grier argued that even if they were able to review the decision of lower courts on questions of fact or law related to admiralty and maritime cases like this one, their ruling would still be wrong due to lack of evidence presented by either side during trial. Finally, he concluded with his belief that granting a writ of error in these circumstances would set dangerous precedent for future cases and thus should be avoided at all costs.