In the 1904 case of Doctor v. Harrington, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Florida. The plaintiff, Doctor, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it through a Spanish land grant before Florida became part of the U.S. However, this claim was disputed by Harrington and others who argued that they held title to the same property under subsequent American laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harrington and his co-defendants on grounds that there were no sufficient evidence proving Doctor's claims about prior ownership rights based on Spanish law or any other legal basis for his claim to hold superior title than those claiming under later U.S laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of DOCTOR v. HARRINGTON, 1904, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law and its application to this particular case. The dissenting justices believed that the ship owner should not be held responsible for damages caused by a collision with another vessel if they were not at fault or negligent in any way. They contended that under international maritime law, liability is based on negligence rather than strict liability principles applied by the majority. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was interpreted and felt there wasn't sufficient proof to establish negligence on part of defendant’s crew members as claimed by plaintiff’s side. Therefore, according to them, holding Harrington liable for damages without clear evidence of his crew's negligence contradicted established legal principles and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.