In the case of Samuel B. Hobart and Others, Claimants of the Brig Hope and Cargo v. Andrew Drogan and Others, Libellants, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been captured by an enemy during wartime could be forfeited as prize money for those who took it in battle. The claimants argued that since they were not responsible for its capture or loss, they should not be held liable for any damages caused by its seizure. On the other hand, libellants contended that since their property was taken without just cause or compensation from them, they deserved some form of restitution from those who seized it unlawfully. After considering both sides’ arguments carefully, the court ultimately ruled in favor of libellants on grounds that claimants did not have legal title to vessel at time when it was captured; thus forfeiture would serve as appropriate remedy under circumstances presented before court.

In the case of Samuel B. Hobart and Others, Claimants of the Brig Hope and Cargo v. Andrew Drogan and Others, Libellants, a majority opinion was issued in favor of the libellants. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that there were errors in both fact-finding by the lower court as well as its interpretation of law; specifically he noted that some evidence had been excluded which should have been considered relevant to determining whether or not salvage services had actually been rendered by those claiming it. Additionally he argued that even if such services had indeed taken place they did not meet certain criteria for being deemed “extraordinary” enough to merit an award under maritime law at issue here; thus no salvage award should be granted regardless of any other considerations made during trial proceedings below. In conclusion Justice McLean maintained his position against granting a salvage award due to lack sufficient proof presented before him regarding extraordinary service having occurred in this particular case