In the 1918 case of The Scow 6-S, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over salvage rights. A scow (a type of boat) named "6-S" had been abandoned by its crew during a storm and was later found and salvaged by another vessel. The owners of the rescuing vessel claimed they were entitled to full ownership of the scow as compensation for their salvage efforts. However, this claim was disputed by the original owners who argued that abandonment did not equate to forfeiture of property rights. The court ruled in favor of the original owners stating that although maritime law does recognize salvage rights, it does not allow for an automatic transferal or forfeiture of ownership simply due to abandonment under duress such as in cases like storms at sea. Therefore, despite being saved from potential loss or destruction, Scow 6-S remained legally owned by its original proprietors while those who rescued it were entitled only to fair remuneration for their services rendered rather than complete possession.

The dissenting opinion in the case of The Scow 6-S argued that the majority's decision was too broad and did not adequately consider the specific circumstances surrounding this maritime dispute. They contended that there were significant questions about liability, given that it was unclear whether negligence on part of either party had directly caused or contributed to the damage sustained by The Scow 6-S. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated, arguing for a more nuanced approach rather than simply awarding full compensation to one party. This would have taken into account factors such as shared responsibility and mitigating circumstances which could reduce or increase financial obligations accordingly. In their view, justice would be better served by a more balanced consideration of all relevant facts and issues at hand.