The Wildcroft case in 1905 involved a dispute over the salvage rights of a sunken vessel. The owners of the ship, which had sunk off the coast of New Jersey, contracted with two companies to raise it. However, another company known as Merritt & Chapman Derrick and Wrecking Company claimed that they had already begun work on salvaging the ship before this contract was made and thus deserved compensation for their efforts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Merritt & Chapman Derrick and Wrecking Company stating that since they were first to begin operations on saving property from marine peril without objection from anyone else at that time, they are entitled to continue until completion or abandonment regardless if other contracts were later formed by the owner. This ruling established an important precedent regarding maritime law and salvage rights.

In the dissenting opinion for The Wildcroft case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its cargo of cotton catching fire was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that there were no signs of negligence on part of the ship's crew or owners and thus they should not be held responsible for an accident which could not have been foreseen or prevented. It further contended that holding them liable would set a dangerous precedent where any carrier could be made to pay damages in similar circumstances even when they had taken all reasonable precautions against such accidents. This, according to the dissent, went against established principles of maritime law and justice.