In the 1896 case of Campbell v. Ellet, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Campbell, was an heir to a large estate in Virginia that had been left by his grandfather to his mother's siblings due to her predeceasing him. However, she had married under Scottish law which allowed for marital assets to be shared equally among spouses and their children upon death. Therefore, Campbell argued that he should have inherited half of his mother's share when she died before her father did. The defendant Ellet was another relative who claimed ownership based on American common law principles where property is passed down directly from parent to child or closest living relative if there are no direct descendants. The court ruled in favor of Ellet stating that while it recognized the validity of foreign marriages and related legal consequences within those jurisdictions (in this case Scotland), these do not supersede local state laws regarding inheritance unless explicitly stated otherwise in a will or similar document.

The dissenting opinion in the Campbell v. Ellet case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law and its application to river navigation. The dissent contended that a steamboat operating on a navigable river should be considered as engaged in maritime commerce, thus falling under federal jurisdiction for any related disputes or accidents. It also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "navigable waters," arguing that this term should include all bodies of water where commercial activity occurs, not just those directly connected to the sea. Furthermore, they believed that by limiting federal jurisdiction over such cases, states would have too much power over interstate commerce which could lead to inconsistencies and conflicts between state laws.