The Resolute, Dowsett, Libellant case in 1897 revolved around a dispute over salvage rights. The schooner "Resolute" had been abandoned at sea during a storm and was later discovered by the ship "Kalihi". The crew of the Kalihi managed to secure and tow the Resolute back to port. However, before they could claim their salvage rights, another party named Dowsett intervened claiming he had an agreement with the owners of the Resolute that gave him exclusive right to any potential salvages. This led to a legal battle where both parties claimed ownership over the recovered vessel. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kalihi's crew stating that since they were not aware of any prior agreements between Dowsett and Resolute’s owner when they found it adrift at sea; therefore their actions constituted pure salvage which entitled them for compensation from its value. Furthermore, even if such an agreement existed between Dowsett and Resolutes' owner it would be irrelevant as per maritime law because once a ship is abandoned at sea anyone who recovers it has rightful claim on its salvage.

In the dissenting opinion for The Resolute case, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to absolve the steam tug "Resolute" of liability for a collision. He argued that while both vessels were at fault, it was incorrect to place equal blame on each party. According to him, the schooner had taken all necessary precautions and followed navigational rules by stopping its engine when it saw an approaching vessel in foggy conditions. On contrary, he believed that "Resolute" failed in her duty by not slowing down or changing course despite being aware of another ship's presence through repeated whistle signals. Therefore, he concluded that "Resolute" should bear most responsibility for damages caused due to this accident as she did not take appropriate actions required under such circumstances according to maritime law.