In the case of The Styria, Scopinich, Claimant v. Morgan in 1901, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and salvage rights. The steamship "Styria" had run aground near Sandy Hook, New Jersey and was subsequently rescued by two tugboats owned by Thomas Clyde & Co., who then claimed salvage rights to the ship and its cargo. However, Captain Scopinich of 'The Styria' argued that he did not request or require assistance from these tugs as his own crew could have freed their vessel without external help. He also contended that even if there were any services rendered they were done under an existing contract for towage rather than salvage operations which would entitle them to compensation based on value saved. The court ultimately sided with Thomas Clyde & Co., ruling that although Captain Scopinich may not have explicitly requested aid from the tugboats, their intervention prevented potential further damage or total loss of 'The Styria'. Therefore it constituted a successful act of marine rescue deserving appropriate remuneration under laws governing salvages at sea.

In the dissenting opinion for The Styria v. Morgan case, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with international law principles and previous court rulings. He contended that a vessel in distress has an absolute right to assistance from any nearby ship, regardless of nationality or location. This obligation is not negated by potential danger or inconvenience to the rescuing party unless it poses serious risk to their own safety. Therefore, he believed that The Styria had a duty to assist The Kate Dyer when she was in peril on high seas and failed in this duty by leaving her without aid after towing her out of immediate danger but before she reached safe harbor. In his view, this failure made them liable for damages resulting from subsequent loss of property aboard The Kate Dyer due to continued exposure at sea.