In Webster & Another v. Buffalo Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a policy of insurance issued by the Buffalo Insurance Company was valid. The policy was issued to the plaintiffs, Webster & Another, and provided coverage for the loss of a vessel and its cargo. The plaintiffs argued that the policy was invalid because it was issued without the knowledge or consent of the vessel's owner. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid. The Court reasoned that the policy was issued in good faith and that the vessel's owner had not been prejudiced by the lack of knowledge or consent. The Court further held that the policy was binding on the parties and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of the loss from the Buffalo Insurance Company. The Court's decision established that an insurance policy can be valid even if it is issued without the knowledge or consent of the insured. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the field of insurance law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Webster & Another v. Buffalo Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and should be overturned. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a contract for insurance is not subject to cancellation by either party unless there has been fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of one of them. In this case, he noted that no such fraud or misrepresentation had occurred; thus, it was improper for the lower court to have granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer based solely on its unilateral right to cancel an otherwise valid policy. Furthermore, Justice Field contended that even if there had been some kind of breach by one party or another – which he did not believe had occurred here – then damages would still need to be assessed before any rescission could take place. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for reversal and remandment so as "to give effect" both parties' rights under their agreement and existing law governing contracts for insurance policies.