In the 1912 case of Anderson v. Smith, the US Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a ship's captain could be held liable for damages caused by his negligence while at sea. The plaintiff, Mrs. Anderson, acting as administratrix of her late husband’s estate, claimed that Captain Smith had negligently sailed into a storm which resulted in Mr. Anderson's death and loss of property on board the vessel "Hattie G Dow". However, it was found that there were no grounds to hold Captain Smith personally responsible for these losses under maritime law because he did not own any part of the cargo or vessel himself and acted within his authority as master in navigating through what appeared to him as an ordinary squall rather than a hurricane. Therefore, even though damage occurred due to his decision-making during this eventful voyage from Maine to Florida via New York City harbor; it wasn't deemed negligent enough for personal liability since captains are expected make such judgments based on their professional expertise and experience.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Smith, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Smith contradicted established legal principles regarding contract law and unjust enrichment. The dissenting justices believed that Anderson should have been allowed to recover funds she had paid towards a property purchase agreement, which was later found to be invalid due to lack of proper documentation. They contended that allowing Smith to retain these payments without providing any value in return constituted unjust enrichment, an outcome contrary to fundamental fairness and equity principles inherent in contract law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant state laws governing real estate transactions, arguing instead for a more equitable application acknowledging both parties' rights and obligations under such agreements.