This Supreme Court case involved James H. Ure, the claimant of the steamer Gipsey, and James M. Coffman and Cyrus Coffman, owners of a flat-boat and cargo. The dispute arose when Ure's steamboat collided with the flat-boat owned by the Coffmans while navigating on a river in Kentucky. As a result of this collision, both vessels were damaged beyond repair as well as their respective cargoes being destroyed or lost overboard into the river. In response to this incident, Ure filed suit against the Coffmans for damages caused by his vessel colliding with theirs due to negligence on behalf of either party or both parties combined. Ultimately after considering all evidence presented before it including testimony from witnesses who had seen what happened during that day on board each vessel at issue in this case; The Supreme Court found that neither party was negligent but instead held them jointly liable for any losses incurred due to their mutual fault which resulted in an equal division between them regarding responsibility for payment towards such losses suffered by each other’s property damage claims arising out from said collision event occurring upon navigable waters within Kentucky state jurisdiction boundaries whereupon they were operating those vessels at time thereof..

In the case of James H. Ure, Claimant of the Steamer Gipsey v. James M. Coffman and Cyrus Coffman, Owners of Flat-Boat and Cargo, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider all relevant facts surrounding the collision between two vessels on navigable waters. He noted that while both parties had some responsibility for their actions leading up to and during the incident, there were other factors at play as well such as weather conditions or lack thereof which should have been taken into account when determining liability for damages caused by said collision. Furthermore, he argued that even if one party was found more negligent than another they should not be held solely responsible since this would lead to an unfair result where one side is forced to bear all costs associated with repairing any damage done due either vessel involved in said accident regardless of fault or negligence level attributed thereto.