In the case of Bates v. Preble in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Bates, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance. However, the defendant, Preble argued that she was entitled to this property as per her father's will and accused Bates of fraudulently obtaining title to it by manipulating her brother into selling him their father’s estate without her knowledge or consent. The court ruled in favor of Preble stating that there was no evidence proving any fraudulent activity on part of Bates but also noted that his claim lacked merit because he failed to provide sufficient proof showing valid purchase or transfer deed for said property from its rightful heir (Preble's brother). Thusly affirming lower courts' decision which held same view regarding matter at hand.

In the dissenting opinion for Bates v. Preble, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Bates was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of maritime law and contract interpretation. The dissenting justices believed that when interpreting contracts related to shipping goods, courts should take into account not only the specific terms agreed upon by both parties but also customary practices within the industry. They contended that under such considerations, Preble had fulfilled his contractual obligations and therefore should not be held liable for damages incurred during shipment due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on risk allocation in shipping contracts arguing instead that risks associated with sea transport are typically borne by ship owners rather than cargo owners unless explicitly stated otherwise in their agreement.