In the case of Barrow Steamship Company v. Kane, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Kane. The plaintiff was a British steamship company that had contracted with an American firm to transport goods from New York to Liverpool. However, due to negligence on part of the steamship company's employees during loading operations in New York harbor which resulted in damage and loss of cargo belonging to third parties (not involved in this contract), lawsuits were filed against them for compensation. The issue before court was whether or not these losses could be recovered by suing under federal maritime law or if they should be considered as 'general average' contributions - costs shared among all stakeholders when there is a voluntary sacrifice made for common safety at sea. The court held that such losses cannot be treated as general average because it did not involve any intentional act aimed at preserving property from impending peril but rather arose out of negligent conduct by ship’s crew members while performing their duties within navigable waters; hence fell under jurisdictional purview of admiralty laws allowing recovery through tort claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Barrow Steamship Company v. Kane, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of maritime law and international comity. He contended that a British court had already ruled on this matter and awarded damages to Kane, thus any further litigation in American courts constituted an unnecessary re-litigation of settled matters. According to him, it was inappropriate for U.S courts to interfere with judgments made by competent foreign tribunals unless there were clear indications of fraud or injustice involved in those proceedings which wasn't evident here. Furthermore, he emphasized that such interference could potentially strain diplomatic relations between nations and disrupt international legal order.