In the case of Jacob Houseman, Claimant &c., Appellant v. The Cargo of the Schooner North Carolina, Oliver O'Hara, Agent &c., Libellant, a dispute arose over whether or not certain goods were subject to forfeiture due to an alleged violation of U.S. customs laws by their importer and owner. The Supreme Court ultimately held that although it was true that the goods had been imported in violation of law and thus subject to seizure by Customs officers for forfeiture proceedings against them as contraband merchandise; however they could not be forfeited without first giving notice to the claimant so he might have an opportunity to appear before court and show cause why such forfeiture should not take place. This decision established important precedent regarding how seized property must be handled under U.S customs laws going forward - namely that claimants must always receive proper notification prior any action being taken against their property in order for justice to prevail

In the case of Jacob Houseman v. The Cargo of the Schooner North Carolina, Oliver O'Hara, Agent, &C., Libellant (1841), Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that it was wrong to deny Houseman his right to recover damages for goods lost at sea because there had been no proof presented by either party as to who owned them or how they were lost. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been such evidence presented, it would not have changed the outcome since both parties agreed on all material facts related to this case and thus any dispute over ownership could not affect liability or damages due under maritime law. In conclusion, Justice McLean concluded that Houseman should be allowed recovery for his losses as provided by maritime law and urged reversal of the majority's decision denying him relief.