In the case of Crawford v. Neal in 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a matter concerning land ownership and inheritance laws. The dispute arose when William H. Crawford claimed that he had inherited a piece of property from his father's estate, which was located in Washington D.C., but it had been sold without his knowledge or consent by John W. Neal, who acted as an executor for another part of the family's estate. Crawford argued that since he was not living in Washington D.C at the time and did not have any legal representation there either, he could not be considered legally notified about this sale under District law - thus making it invalid. The court ruled against him stating that even though he wasn't physically present or represented during these proceedings; because they were public record and took place within jurisdiction where property is situated (Washington D.C), Crawford should have taken steps to ensure his interests were protected instead of assuming no action would be taken without direct notification to him.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crawford v. Neal argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law. The dissenting justices believed that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by a ship's pilot, who is considered an independent contractor and not an employee of the ship owner. They pointed out that under maritime law, pilots are required to have special skills and knowledge, which gives them authority over navigation decisions on board ships. Therefore, they argued that any liability for damage resulting from those decisions should fall on the pilot rather than the ship owner. Furthermore, they contended that holding owners responsible could discourage them from hiring skilled pilots due to potential financial risks associated with their actions.