In the case of Morse Drydock & Repair Company v. Steamship Northern Star, 1925, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over repair costs for a steamship. The owners of the Steamship Northern Star contracted with Morse Drydock & Repair Company to perform repairs on their ship. However, after completion of work and delivery of the vessel back to its owners, they refused to pay for certain parts of work done by Morse claiming that it was unnecessary and not agreed upon in their contract. The court ruled in favor of Morse Drydock stating that under maritime law if a ship is delivered for necessary repairs without specific instructions as to what should be done or how much can be spent then it is implied that all necessary steps will be taken at reasonable cost which must then be paid by owner unless there's evidence showing fraud or imposition from repairer's side.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morse Drydock & Repair Company v. Steamship Northern Star, Etc., et al., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of maritime law and failed to properly interpret the contract between the parties. The dissent contended that under traditional maritime law, a shipowner is not liable for damages caused by an inherent defect in their vessel unless they had knowledge of it or were negligent in discovering it. They believed this principle should have been applied here since there was no evidence suggesting that Morse Drydock knew about or negligently overlooked any defects on its dry dock which led to damage on Northern Star’s steamship. Furthermore, they disagreed with how majority interpreted contractual clauses related to liability and indemnity arguing these provisions did not absolve Morse from responsibility but rather limited their liability only up until certain extent as per standard industry practices at that time.