The William M. Hoag case in 1897 involved a dispute over the ownership of cargo on board the ship, The William M. Hoag, which had been seized by U.S authorities during the Spanish-American War. The claimants argued that they were neutral parties and therefore their goods should not have been confiscated as enemy property. However, it was revealed that one of them had given false testimony regarding his nationality to avoid seizure of his goods during wartime; he claimed to be French when he was actually Spanish - an enemy national at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against him based on this deception and held that all claims made under false pretenses are invalid regardless of whether or not there is any other valid basis for such claims. This decision established a precedent in maritime law where fraudulent conduct can lead to forfeiture even if there might otherwise be a legitimate claim.

In the dissenting opinion for The William M. Hoag case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its cargo of oil leaking into another vessel was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds in maritime law or general principles of justice to support this ruling. They pointed out that the ship had not been negligent in any way and had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an accident from happening. Furthermore, they contended that holding a ship responsible for damage caused by its cargo would open up a Pandora’s box of liability issues, as ships often carry dangerous goods without being aware of their potential risks. Therefore, they concluded that unless negligence could be proven on part of the carrier or owner, liability should not be imposed solely based on carriage.