In the case of Louis M'Lane, Executor of Allen M'Lane, Deceased v. The United States, Louis M’Lane was claiming a moiety (half) of the forfeiture of the ship Good Friends. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not he was entitled to this claim. In order for him to be eligible for such a claim, it would have been necessary that his ancestor had an interest in the vessel prior to its seizure by customs officers and subsequent condemnation as forfeited property. After reviewing all evidence presented before them on both sides, including testimony from witnesses and documents related to ownership history of the ship Good Friends at various points in time leading up to its eventual seizure by customs officers; it was determined that there were no facts which could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Allen McLane ever held any legal title or interest in said vessel prior to its being seized as forfeited property by custom officials. Therefore, Louis McLane's claim against The United States failed and he did not receive any portion of the forfeiture money associated with this case.

In the case of Louis M'Lane, Executor of Allen M'Lane, Deceased v. The United States, the dissenting opinion was that a moiety (half) of the forfeiture should be paid to claimant as he had been in possession and control of the ship Good Friends prior to its seizure by authorities for violation of customs laws. The majority opinion held that since there was no proof presented regarding any actual ownership interest in said vessel at time it was seized, then no part or portion could be awarded to claimant as damages. However, Justice Story argued that even though there may not have been legal title established at time vessel was seized; nevertheless it is clear from evidence presented during trial proceedings that claimant had possession and control over same prior thereto which entitled him to some form compensation for his losses due to such seizure. He further stated that if this were not so then claimants would suffer great injustice with respect their rights under law when vessels are taken without sufficient cause or justification on part government officials charged with enforcing same.