The Edwin I. Morrison case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over the salvage rights of a sunken vessel. The steamship Edwin I. Morrison sank near New Orleans, and was later raised by the Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Company without any prior agreement with the ship's owners regarding compensation for their services. When they claimed an exorbitant amount as salvage charges, it led to litigation which reached the Supreme Court. The court ruled that while salvors have rights to reasonable compensation for their efforts and risks taken, these claims must be proportionate to the value of what has been saved - not based on how much effort or resources were expended during salvage operations. It also emphasized that such rewards should encourage rather than deter future rescue attempts by others. In this particular case, considering factors like risk involved in raising operation (which was minimal), time spent (around two months) and actual expenses incurred ($7k approx.), along with potential benefit received by owners due to saving of property worth $60k; court decided $10k as fair remuneration instead of demanded $30k.

In the dissenting opinion for The Edwin I. Morrison case, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship owner liable for damages caused by an independent contractor was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings. He contended that while it is true that owners are responsible for ensuring their vessels are seaworthy, this duty does not extend to faults or negligence on part of independent contractors hired to perform repairs. In his view, if a vessel has been inspected and approved as seaworthy by competent authorities after repair work done by an independent contractor, then any subsequent damage should be attributed solely to the fault of said contractor rather than the ship owner. Therefore, he disagreed with holding the shipowner accountable in such cases.