The New Bedford Dry Dock Company v. Purdy case in 1921 revolved around a dispute over the payment for repair services provided by the New Bedford Dry Dock Company to the steamer Jack-O-Lantern, owned by Purdy. The dry dock company filed a libel in admiralty against the vessel and its owner, seeking compensation for their work. However, Purdy argued that he was not liable as he had chartered out his ship to another party at the time of repairs under an agreement where charterer would be responsible for any necessary repairs during this period. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Bedford Dry Dock Company stating that regardless of any private agreements between parties involved, maritime law allows those who provide necessaries (like repair services) to a ship have a maritime lien on it which can be enforced against anyone possessing it unless they lack knowledge about such necessities being supplied or are misled into providing them without expectation of payment from owners.

In the dissenting opinion for New Bedford Dry Dock Company v. Purdy, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship owner liable for damages caused by an independent contractor went against established principles of maritime law. The dissent contended that while a ship owner could be held responsible for their own negligence or misconduct, they should not be held accountable for actions taken by an independent contractor over whom they had no control. This view maintained that such liability would place an undue burden on ship owners and potentially disrupt maritime commerce. Furthermore, the dissent expressed concern about setting a precedent where parties could be held legally responsible even when there was no evidence of direct fault or negligence on their part.