In the case of Ralli v. Troop, a dispute arose over a shipment of wheat from India to England that was damaged during transit due to alleged negligence by the ship's crew. The plaintiffs, who were Greek merchants and consignees of the cargo, sued for damages in Philadelphia where they had sold part of their claim against the ship owners to an American citizen. However, under British law at that time (1894), only British subjects could sue for such damages. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Troop & Co., stating that since both parties involved were foreigners and because it was based on foreign maritime law which did not recognize rights or liabilities towards non-British subjects regarding marine accidents occurring outside territorial waters; therefore American courts lacked jurisdiction over this matter.

In the dissenting opinion for Ralli v. Troop, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply principles of maritime law. The dissenting justices believed that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by cargo loaded onto their vessel without their knowledge or consent, particularly when there is no evidence of negligence on their part. They contended that holding ship owners responsible in such cases would place an unfair burden on them and could potentially disrupt maritime commerce. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain clauses in the bill of lading involved in this case, arguing instead that these clauses were intended to protect ship owners from liability under circumstances like those presented here.