In the case of Noble v. Gallardo Y Seary, 1911, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lower court had jurisdiction over a dispute involving land in Cuba that was purchased by an American citizen from Spanish citizens during the Spanish-American War. The plaintiff argued that they were entitled to compensation for their property being seized and sold without proper notice or opportunity to contest it. However, the defendants contended that since Spain ceded sovereignty over Cuba to America after losing the war, Cuban law should apply instead of American law - under which they would not be liable for damages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gallardo Y Seary (the defendant), stating that while US courts have jurisdiction over territories acquired by conquest or treaty until Congress provides otherwise; this does not extend to private disputes between individuals regarding property located within those territories unless explicitly stated by Congress. Therefore, as there was no Congressional act giving federal courts authority over such matters at this time; it lacked jurisdiction and could not hear Noble's claim against them.

In the dissenting opinion for Noble v. Gallardo Y Seary, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Gallardo y Seary was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of Spanish law and its application in this case. The dissenting justices believed that under Spanish law, which governed at the time of Mr. Noble's actions, his conduct would not have been considered illegal or fraudulent as he had acted within his rights as a creditor to protect his interests against those of other creditors who were also seeking repayment from the same debtor. They further argued that even if there had been any wrongdoing on part of Mr. Noble, it should be addressed through civil litigation rather than criminal prosecution because such matters are typically handled by civil courts under both American and Spanish legal systems.