The Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Company v. Seaboard Fisheries Company case in 1920 revolved around a dispute over damages caused by the collision of two vessels, one owned by each company. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining who was at fault for the accident and thus responsible for paying reparations. The court found that both parties were equally to blame due to their failure to follow established navigation rules which led to the collision. As such, it ruled that they should share equally in bearing the loss resulting from this incident - an application of maritime law principle known as 'divided damages rule'. This decision upheld previous rulings made by lower courts on this matter.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Company v. Seaboard Fisheries Company, Claimant, 1920 argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of maritime law. The dissent contended that a ship at anchor should be considered as part of the land to which it is attached, rather than being treated as a vessel navigating on water. Therefore, any damage caused by such an anchored ship should not fall under admiralty jurisdiction but instead be subject to common law rules applicable on land. This interpretation would mean that liability for damages rests solely with those who actively cause harm (in this case, the coal company), rather than being shared between both parties involved in an accident (the coal company and fisheries). The dissent also criticized how evidence was evaluated in this case and suggested there were factual errors made by lower courts which influenced their judgment unfairly against Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Company.