The case of Sandberg et al. v. McDonald, Claimant of the British Ship Talus in 1918 revolved around a dispute over maritime law and salvage rights. The plaintiffs, Sandberg and others, were American fishermen who rescued the crew of the British ship Talus after it had been abandoned during World War I due to fears that it was about to be sunk by German submarines operating in nearby waters. After rescuing the crew, they towed the vessel back to port in Massachusetts where they claimed salvage rights for their efforts under international maritime law - essentially arguing that they should be rewarded with ownership or compensation for saving an abandoned ship at sea. However, McDonald (the original owner) contested this claim on behalf of Britain's Admiralty Court which had already declared him as rightful owner since he never intended to abandon his property permanently but only temporarily due to wartime circumstances beyond his control. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Sandberg and upheld McDonald’s claim stating that abandonment must be absolute without any intention or hope of recovery before another party can legally claim salvage rights over a distressed vessel at sea.

In the dissenting opinion for Sandberg et al. v. McDonald, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a seizure of goods from a neutral ship during wartime was inconsistent with international law and precedent. The dissent emphasized that neutrality should protect non-combatants from having their property seized without compensation unless they are directly aiding in enemy warfare efforts or violating an established blockade. In this case, there was no evidence presented to suggest such violations by the British ship Talus or its claimant, McDonald. Therefore, according to the dissenters' interpretation of maritime law and principles of fairness and justice, seizing goods from a neutral party under these circumstances is unlawful and unjustified.