The Liebenroth v. Robertson case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain goods that were seized by U.S. customs officials due to non-payment of duties. The claimant, Mr. Liebenroth, argued that he was not liable for these unpaid duties as he had purchased the goods after they had been imported into the country and therefore did not own them at the time when they were subject to duty charges. However, his argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Liebenroth stating that under section 2787 of Revised Statutes it is clear that any person who purchases or agrees to purchase any merchandise while it remains deposited in bonded warehouse shall be regarded as an importer thereof; hence liable for payment of all legal charges thereon including unpaid import duties regardless if such person wasn't owner during importation period. This decision established important precedent regarding liability for import duties on goods held within bonded warehouses which continues to influence American trade law today.

In the dissenting opinion for Liebenroth v. Robertson, Justice Brewer argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the lower courts. He believed that there was no error in their rulings and thus saw no reason to overturn them. The main issue at hand was whether a certain ship had been unlawfully seized by customs officials due to alleged smuggling activities. Justice Brewer contended that since it was proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial that illegal goods were indeed found on board, this justified any actions taken by authorities under existing laws against smuggling. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in plaintiff's arguments which further cast doubts on their claims of innocence or ignorance about these illicit activities happening aboard their vessel.