The Supreme Court case of Dayton, Claimant of the Schooner Monterey and Cargo v. United States was a dispute over whether or not the claimant had a valid title to certain goods that were seized by U.S. customs officers in 1859 from an American vessel called the Schooner Monterey while it was sailing off the coast of California. The court found that although there may have been some irregularities in how the goods were acquired, they did not invalidate Dayton's claim as owner since he had taken possession before any legal proceedings began against him and his property rights should be respected under established principles of maritime law. Furthermore, even if there had been some irregularity with respect to how he obtained ownership, this would still not affect his right to compensation for damages suffered due to seizure by government officials acting without proper authority or jurisdiction at sea. Ultimately, therefore, Dayton won his case and received payment for all losses incurred as a result of having his cargo confiscated unlawfully by U.S Customs Officers during their voyage on board The Schooner Monterey

In the case of Dayton, Claimant of the Schooner Monterey and Cargo v. United States, Justice Nelson delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass an act allowing for seizure and condemnation of vessels engaged in illegal trade with Confederate forces during the Civil War. He maintained that such seizures were unconstitutional because they violated Article I Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive power over foreign commerce but not domestic commerce. Furthermore, he argued that even if it could be assumed that Congress did have this power under certain circumstances, it was still necessary for there to be proof beyond reasonable doubt before any vessel or cargo could be seized or condemned by federal authorities. In his view, since there was no evidence presented at trial showing conclusively whether or not the schooner Monterey had been involved in illegal trading activities with Confederate forces prior to its capture by Union naval officers on April 5th 1865 - as required by law - then its owner should have been entitled to compensation from damages suffered due to wrongful seizure and condemnation proceedings brought against him without sufficient cause.