In the Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, S.A., v. The Navemar et al. case of 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and bankruptcy proceedings. Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima (Maritime Company) had chartered a ship from The Navemar but failed to pay for its use due to financial difficulties. As such, The Navemar sought compensation through American courts after Maritime Company filed for bankruptcy in Spain and was unable to fulfill its obligations under their contract. The key issue before the court was whether an American court could enforce claims against a foreign company undergoing bankruptcy proceedings in another country. In this case, it was decided that they could not; as per international comity principles which dictate respect between nations' legal systems - especially regarding insolvency matters where assets are distributed among creditors. Therefore, despite acknowledging that Maritime Company owed money to The Navemar under their charter agreement's terms; the Supreme Court held that it would be inappropriate for US courts to interfere with Spanish bankruptcy proceedings by enforcing these debts independently.

In the dissenting opinion for COMPANIA ESPANOLA DE NAVEGACION MARITIMA, S. A., v. THE NAVEMAR et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a maritime lien against a Spanish ship was inconsistent with international law and previous court decisions. He contended that under both U.S. and international law, foreign ships should be exempt from such liens unless they were explicitly agreed upon by all parties involved in a dispute or mandated by the laws of their home country - neither of which conditions had been met in this case. Furthermore, he noted that past Supreme Court rulings had consistently upheld these principles and warned that ignoring them could lead to retaliatory actions from other countries against American vessels abroad.