The case of May et al. v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft in 1933 revolved around a dispute over the delivery of goods transported by sea from Germany to New York. The plaintiffs, May and others, claimed that the defendant, a German shipping company (Hamburg-Amerikanische), failed to deliver their goods as per contract terms due to negligence or misconduct during World War I when the U.S seized its ships under Trading with Enemy Act. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamburg-Amerikanische stating that it was not liable for non-delivery because it had been prevented from fulfilling its contractual obligations due to an external event beyond its control - seizure by American authorities during wartime which is considered an act of sovereign power and thus falls under 'force majeure' clause exempting parties from liability if they are unable perform their duties due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control.

In the dissenting opinion for May et al. v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings of the court. He contended that under established principles of maritime law, a shipowner is liable for damages caused by its negligence regardless of where it occurs - whether in territorial waters or on high seas. Therefore, he believed that American courts should have jurisdiction over this case involving an accident at sea between two ships owned by foreign companies but carrying American passengers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of international law and treaties as barring such suits in U.S courts; instead, he saw these legal instruments as recognizing and preserving national rights to adjudicate claims arising from tortious conduct occurring within their territories or affecting their citizens abroad.