The U.S. Supreme Court case Cuba Railroad Company v. Crosby in 1911 involved a dispute over the payment of taxes on railroad property located in Florida but owned by a company incorporated under Cuban law. The plaintiff, Cuba Railroad Company, argued that it was exempt from taxation because its charter contained provisions stating that all property necessary for the operation of the railway would be free from any tax or duty imposed by any government authority within Cuba's jurisdiction. However, this argument was rejected as irrelevant since Florida (where the taxed property was situated) is not within Cuban jurisdiction and thus not subject to its laws or regulations regarding tax exemptions. The defendant, J.N.Crosby - Tax Collector for Duval County, contended that regardless of where a corporation is formed or chartered if it owns taxable property within his county then it must pay taxes according to local laws and regulations. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Crosby upholding his right to levy and collect taxes on properties located within his jurisdiction irrespective of their foreign ownership status.

In the dissenting opinion for Cuba Railroad Company v. Crosby, it was argued that the court majority had misinterpreted and incorrectly applied maritime law principles to this case. The dissenting justices believed that a railroad company operating in Cuba should not be held liable under U.S. laws for an accident occurring on its line there, particularly when those involved were Cuban citizens residing in Cuba at the time of the incident. They contended that applying U.S. law to such circumstances would constitute an extraterritorial application of domestic legislation which is generally avoided unless explicitly stated by Congress or if international legal principles demand it - neither condition being met here according to them.