The Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barlum et al., 1934, was a case that revolved around the issue of whether or not a mortgagee who has taken possession of mortgaged ships can be considered as an "owner pro hac vice" and thus liable for damages caused by those ships under maritime law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Detroit Trust Company, stating that taking possession does not equate to ownership unless there is clear intent to assume such role and responsibilities associated with it. In this particular situation, the court found no evidence suggesting that the trust company intended to take on these roles when they took over control of the vessels due to default on mortgages held against them.

In the dissenting opinion for Detroit Trust Co., Trustee v. The Thomas Barlum et al., Justice Cardozo argued that the majority's decision to hold separate corporations as a single entity was incorrect and inconsistent with established principles of corporate law. He contended that each corporation should be treated as an individual legal entity, regardless of common ownership or control, unless there is evidence of fraud or illegality. In this case, he saw no such evidence and therefore disagreed with treating all three companies involved - Michigan Steamship Company, Eastern Steamship Company, and Nicholson Transit Company - as one unit in bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, he believed that creditors who extended credit to these corporations did so based on their individual financial standing rather than their collective strength; hence they should not bear the risk associated with other entities' debts within the same group.