The U.S. Supreme Court case Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 1909, revolved around a dispute over the ownership of sugar cane in the Dominican Republic. The plaintiff, Javierre, claimed that he had an agreement with Central Altagracia to supply them with sugar cane from his plantation and was owed money for his crops which were seized by the company after they declared bankruptcy. However, Central Altagracia argued that under their contract they had advanced funds to Javierre for growing the crop and thus owned it outright upon delivery regardless of their financial status at any given time. The court ruled in favor of Central Altagracia stating that according to their contract terms and conditions as well as common law principles regarding advances on future crops - such contracts are considered valid even if one party goes bankrupt before fulfilling its obligations unless there is evidence proving fraud or unfair practices involved during negotiation or execution stages.

In the dissenting opinion for Javierre v. Central Altagracia, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Javierre was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law and international jurisdictional issues. The dissent contended that the original agreement between Mr. Javierre and Central Altagracia should have been honored as per its terms, which stipulated arbitration in case of disputes rather than litigation in U.S courts. Furthermore, they believed that American courts did not have proper jurisdiction over this matter since both parties were foreign entities and their contractual relationship took place outside U.S territory. They also criticized the majority's reliance on Dominican Republic laws to justify their judgment when such laws were not applicable under international principles of private law or comity among nations.