Wonson's ruling established the "historical test", which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. Applying the historical test in "Parsons v. Bedford" (1830), for example, the Supreme Court found that jury trials were not constitutionally guaranteed for cases under maritime law, an area in which English common law did not require juries. The Court further clarified this rule as a "fixed historical test" in "Thompson v. Utah "(1898), which established that the relevant guide was English common law of 1791, rather than that of the present day. In "Dimick v. Schiedt" (1935), the Supreme Court declared that the Seventh Amendment was to be interpreted according to the common law of England at the time of the amendment's adoption in 1791. In "Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman" (1935), the Supreme Court held that the amendment does not include "mere matters of form or procedure", but instead preserves the "substance" of the right to jury trial. In "Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry" (1990), the Court explained that the right to a jury trial provided by the Seventh Amendment encompasses more than the common law forms of action recognized in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified), but rather any lawsuit in which parties' legal rights were to be determined, as opposed to suits that involve only equitable rights and remedies.