In the United States v. Truesdell case of 1892, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to maritime law and insurance claims. The defendant, Truesdell, was a shipbuilder who had constructed a vessel that later sank due to alleged poor construction. The insurers refused to pay out on the claim made by the owners of the vessel because they believed that Truesdell had knowingly used substandard materials in its construction. They argued this constituted fraud which would invalidate any insurance claim under maritime law. The court ruled in favor of Truesdell stating there was no evidence proving he intentionally used inferior materials during construction or intended for it to sink as part of an insurance scam. Furthermore, even if such evidence existed, it wouldn't necessarily absolve an insurer from paying out on a policy unless explicit terms within said policy stated so.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Truesdell, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to properly interpret relevant statutes. He contended that a postmaster who had been removed from office should not be considered as continuing in service simply because he retained possession of his office or performed some duties related to it after removal. According to him, such an interpretation would allow any officer who refused to surrender his position upon dismissal to continue drawing salary indefinitely by merely performing some official acts. This view contradicts both common sense and legal precedent which clearly state that once an officer is dismissed, they cease being entitled to their salary regardless of whether they continue performing their duties or not.