In the case of Peters et al. v. Veasey, Administratrix of Veasey in 1919, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who had not been personally served within that state's borders but whose property located within the state was attached as part of a lawsuit. The plaintiffs were creditors seeking to recover debts from Mr. Veasey's estate after his death and they initiated their suit by attaching certain properties belonging to him in Alabama even though he resided and died in North Carolina where his administratrix (the female administrator) also lived. The Supreme Court held that due process under Fourteenth Amendment required personal service on defendants or their legal representatives for states to exercise jurisdiction unless it is impossible to do so; mere attachment of property did not suffice if there was no attempt at personal service when possible. Therefore, since Mrs.Veasey wasn't personally served while she could have been reached through ordinary processes such as mail or delivery services, her due process rights were violated making Alabama courts lack jurisdiction over her.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Peters et al. v. Veasey, 1919 argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent regarding maritime law and personal injury claims. The dissent contended that under traditional maritime law, seamen were entitled to maintenance and cure for injuries sustained while in service of their ship, regardless of negligence on part of the shipowner or fellow crew members. However, this ruling allowed recovery only if there was proof of negligence or unseaworthiness - a burden placed unfairly on injured seamen who may not have access to necessary evidence or resources to prove such claims. Furthermore, it criticized the majority’s interpretation as overly narrow and restrictive which could potentially undermine protections traditionally afforded to sailors under maritime law.