In the 1940 case of Carlota Benitez Sampayo v. Bank of Nova Scotia, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank. The dispute arose when Ms. Sampayo sued for recovery from a deposit made by her late husband at one of the bank's branches in Cuba before his death and subsequent to Cuban government seizure of all deposits held by American banks during political unrests. The court found that under international law principles, it was not within its jurisdiction to question or review actions taken by another sovereign nation (Cuba) within its own territory, even if those actions adversely affected an American citizen or entity such as Bank Of Nova Scotia. Therefore, since Cuba had seized control over all assets and liabilities including deposits in local branches of foreign banks like Bank Of Nova Scotia without any compensation being paid out to original depositors like Ms.Sampayo's deceased husband; she could not claim recovery against this particular branch located outside United States i.e., New York branch where lawsuit was filed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Carlota Benitez Sampayo v. Bank of Nova Scotia argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply principles of international law, particularly those related to sovereign immunity. The dissent contended that Cuba, as a sovereign nation, had an inherent right to dispose its property within its territory without interference from foreign courts. It further asserted that U.S courts should not be used as venues for litigating disputes over acts committed by foreign governments on their own soil. In this context, it was argued that the bank's actions were essentially an extension of Cuban government policy and thus protected under doctrines of sovereign immunity. Therefore, according to this view, Ms Sampayo’s claim against the bank should have been dismissed.