The Carlos F. Roses case in 1899 involved a dispute over the seizure of a Spanish vessel by an American warship during the Spanish-American War. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the capture was lawful as it occurred after Congress had declared war on Spain, but before news of this declaration had reached Manila where the ship was seized. The court held that even though hostilities hadn't begun at Manila when the ship was captured, they were ongoing elsewhere and thus justified under international law which recognizes no locality for beginning or ending of hostilities once war is declared between two countries.

In the dissenting opinion for The Carlos F. Roses case, it was argued that the majority's decision to award damages to a Spanish ship captured by an American vessel during the Spanish-American War was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that since war had not been officially declared at the time of capture, and because Spain had already initiated hostilities against America, this act should be considered as part of warfare rather than piracy or illegal seizure. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of international law regarding prize captures in wartime, arguing instead that such captures are lawful if they occur after hostilities have begun but before formal declaration of war. Furthermore, they contended that even if these actions were deemed unlawful under international law, U.S courts did not have jurisdiction over them as they occurred outside U.S territorial waters and involved military personnel acting under orders from their superiors.