William H. Van Buren brought a case against William H. Digges, who was using Joseph Liebey as an agent in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from a contract between Van Buren and Liebey for the sale of certain goods to be shipped on board two vessels owned by Liebey, which were insured by him with Digges as his agent. When one vessel arrived safely at its destination but without any part of its cargo, Van Buren sued both parties claiming that he had been damaged due to their negligence in not properly insuring it or taking other necessary precautions for its safe arrival. The court found that although there was no evidence showing that either party had acted negligently or fraudulently, they were still liable because they failed to exercise reasonable care when entering into such contracts and thus breached their duty towards each other under maritime law principles governing insurance contracts involving ships and cargoes. Ultimately, the court held that both parties should bear responsibility for damages caused by their failure to take proper measures before entering into such agreements

In the dissenting opinion of William H. Van Buren v. William H. Digges, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had not been given a fair trial in the lower court and should have been granted a new trial on appeal due to errors made by both parties during proceedings. He noted that there were several discrepancies between testimony provided by witnesses for each side, as well as evidence presented which was not properly authenticated or admitted into record without proper authentication from an expert witness who could testify to its accuracy and relevance to the case at hand. Furthermore, he argued that certain rulings made by the judge presiding over this case were erroneous and prejudicial against Van Buren's interests; thus making it impossible for him to receive justice in his original trial before being denied a new one on appeal despite these issues being raised with sufficient merit beforehand.