The Folmina case in 1908 involved a dispute over the seizure of a vessel during the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government had seized "The Folmina," an Italian ship, on suspicion that it was carrying contraband for Spain. After the war ended, the owners of The Folmina sued for damages due to unlawful detention and loss of use of their property. They argued that since Italy was neutral in this conflict, its vessels were immune from seizure unless they violated neutrality by transporting contraband. However, upon inspection after capture, no contraband was found aboard The Folmina but she had been detained until after hostilities ceased between America and Spain before being released without any adjudication as prize or otherwise. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against The Folmina's owners stating that while international law does protect neutral ships from seizure during wartime except under certain circumstances (like carrying enemy goods), these protections do not extend to provide compensation for losses incurred due to seizures later proven unjustified if made under reasonable suspicion at time of action.

In the dissenting opinion for The Folmina case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship owner liable for damages caused by their vessel during a storm was unjust. This perspective held that maritime law should not impose liability on ship owners when damage is caused by unforeseeable natural disasters such as storms, which are beyond human control. It emphasized that there were no negligence or misconduct from the crew or captain of The Folmina and thus they shouldn't be penalized for circumstances outside their control. Furthermore, this viewpoint suggested that imposing such liabilities could have negative implications on maritime commerce as it would increase risks and costs associated with shipping operations.