This Supreme Court case involved Samuel Ward, the claimant of the bark Mopang, and William M. Peck, Jacob Badger, Freeman Kingsley and Humphrey Devereux who were all libellants. The dispute was over a contract between Ward and Peck that stated that if Ward could not pay off his debt to Peck then he would give up ownership of the vessel in question. However when it came time for payment there was an issue as to whether or not certain items had been included in their agreement which caused a disagreement between them both. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Ward stating that since no specific items were mentioned by either party during their negotiations then they should be excluded from consideration when determining what is owed under this contract. This ruling set precedent for future cases involving contracts where parties do not explicitly state what is included or excluded from any agreements made between them.

In the case of Samuel Ward, Claimant of the Bark Mopang v. William M. Peck, Jacob Badger, Freeman Kingsley and Humphrey Devereux (the Libellants), Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have allowed an appeal from a decree rendered by a district court in admiralty proceedings. He noted that although appeals were generally not allowed from such decrees due to their finality, this particular case was unique because it involved questions of fact as well as law; thus making it appropriate for review on appeal. Furthermore, Justice Curtis pointed out that allowing an appeal would be beneficial since there had been conflicting evidence presented at trial and further consideration could help determine whether or not the claimant's rights had been violated under maritime law. Ultimately, his dissent was unsuccessful and no appeal was granted but his argument serves as an important reminder of how complex cases involving both facts and laws can be when they come before courts today.