In the case of Ex Parte Wilder's Steamship Company, 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and jurisdiction. The steamship company had been sued in state court by an injured sailor seeking damages for negligence under federal maritime law. The company argued that such claims should be heard exclusively in federal courts due to their expertise in maritime matters. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the right of state courts to hear cases involving federal maritime law as long as they did not infringe upon any exclusive admiralty jurisdiction or contradict any acts of Congress regarding this matter. This ruling reinforced concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts over certain types of legal disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Wilder's Steamship Company, it was argued that the majority had misinterpreted maritime law and overstepped its jurisdiction. The dissent contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an accident if they were not at fault or negligent. They believed this case fell under state jurisdiction rather than federal because it involved a collision between two vessels in navigable waters within a state’s boundaries. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "in rem" proceedings, arguing that such actions are typically against the vessel itself and do not involve personal liability on part of the ship owner unless negligence is proven. Thus, according to them, seizing Wilder's Steamship Company’s property without proving their negligence first was unjustified.