In Thomas Whitridge and Others, Claimants of the Schooner Fannie Crocker v. Joshua Dill and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of a schooner was valid. The claimants argued that they had entered into an oral agreement with Dill for the purchase of said vessel; however, Dill denied any such agreement existed. After examining all evidence presented by both sides, including testimony from witnesses who were present at their alleged meeting in which they agreed on terms for sale, as well as other documents related to title transfer and payment arrangements made after this purported meeting took place, it became clear that there had been no binding contract between them due to lack of consideration or mutual assent. Thusly, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joshua Dill and his co-defendants holding that no enforceable contract had been formed between them regarding this transaction.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been sold in good faith by its owner could be reclaimed from the purchaser if it turned out that there were unpaid liens on the vessel. The majority opinion held that such claims could not be enforced against an innocent purchaser who had bought the vessel in good faith and without knowledge of any lien or encumbrance. However, Justice Grier dissented from this ruling and argued that when a person purchases property with notice of existing liens or encumbrances, they are liable for those debts even if they did not have actual knowledge of them at the time of purchase. He reasoned that allowing purchasers to avoid liability would encourage fraud and undermine public confidence in commercial transactions.