In the 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case Cadwalader v. Zeh, the court ruled on a dispute involving customs duties and importation laws. The defendant, Mr. Zeh, imported several casks of brandy from France to New York in 1888 but refused to pay duty charges because he believed they were incorrectly assessed by Customs Collector Cadwalader based on an incorrect classification of his goods under tariff law at that time. He argued that his product was not "brandy," as classified by Cadwalader for tax purposes, but rather "spirits distilled from grapes." The lower courts sided with Zeh; however, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was determined that despite differences in production methods between spirits and brandy (which could affect taste), both products were essentially similar enough for taxation purposes under existing legislation - being derived from distillation of grape wine - thus upholding their classification as 'brandy'. Therefore, the original assessment made by Cadwalader stood correct and Zeh's refusal to pay these duties was deemed unlawful.

In the dissenting opinion for CADWALADER v. ZEH, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of equity. He contended that a mortgagee should not be allowed to benefit from an increase in property value due to improvements made by a mortgagor after foreclosure proceedings have begun but before they are completed. In his view, this would unjustly enrich the mortgagee at the expense of other creditors who may also have claims on the property. Furthermore, he maintained that it is unfair to allow a mortgagee to profit from improvements made without their knowledge or consent while still holding them liable for any decrease in value during this period.