In the case of Plymouth Cordage Company v. Smith, 1903, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lower court had jurisdiction over a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Smith, filed suit against Plymouth Cordage Company to recover damages under an accident insurance policy issued by the company after he sustained injuries while working on one of their machines in Minnesota. The defendant argued that since they were incorporated and based in Massachusetts and not present or doing business in Minnesota at the time of injury, they could not be sued there. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are considered "persons" within legal contexts and can therefore be held liable for actions taken anywhere they conduct business - even if it is outside their state of incorporation or principal place of business. This ruling established important precedent regarding corporate personhood and jurisdictional issues related to where companies can be sued.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Plymouth Cordage Company v. Smith argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law and its application to this specific case. The dissent emphasized that under maritime law, a ship owner is not liable for damages caused by an unseaworthy vessel if they had no knowledge or reason to know about the vessel's condition before setting sail. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Plymouth Cordage Company knew their ship was unseaworthy at the time of departure. Therefore, according to maritime principles and precedents set by previous cases, they should not be held responsible for any damage resulting from its poor condition during voyage. The dissent also criticized the majority’s interpretation of certain legal terms and concepts related with seaworthiness which were crucial in deciding liability in such cases.