[1] The case was brought after the United States moved to seize the wine on the grounds that it had been deliberately mislabeled as sherry to get a tax drawback, and the buyers objected.

During the proceedings at the District Court of Louisiana, it was revealed that the wine was seized on land rather than on the sea, so the United States moved for a jury trial.

The District Attorney argued that there was nothing stopping an Admiralty court from calling for a jury trial, citing the judices selecti of the Roman Empire.

[1] The Attorney-General of the United States appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the grounds of asking for a Writ of Error in that Hall, the real owner, had not expressed opposition to the seizure.

He stated that because Hazard and Williams had proved they had a proprietary interest in the wine, they were legally entitled to challenge the seizure even if they were not the real owners.