The Benito Estenger case in 1899 involved a Spanish vessel that was captured during the Spanish-American War by the U.S. Navy off the coast of Cuba. The ship was carrying cargo from Spain to Manila, but it had stopped at Havana where it was seized on its way out of port. The owners claimed that since they were not directly participating in hostilities and their goods were non-contraband, their property should be returned to them under international law principles protecting neutral commerce during wartime. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that because Spain and America were officially at war when the seizure occurred, all vessels owned by citizens or subjects of either country are considered enemy's property subject to capture wherever found if sailing without a license or passport from American authorities regardless of whether they carry contraband or not.

In the dissenting opinion for The Benito Estenger case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an American ship owner over a Spanish vessel captured during the Spanish-American War was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that international law should have been applied instead of domestic law. They contended that under international law, as recognized by most nations and established through centuries-old customs and treaties, neutral ships are protected from capture during war unless they are carrying contraband or engaging in hostile actions. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest such activities by the Spanish vessel. Therefore, according to these justices' interpretation of international laws and principles governing maritime warfare at sea - which they felt should supersede any conflicting national laws - the seizure of Benito Estenger was unlawful and its owners were entitled to damages for their loss.