This Supreme Court case involved the owners of a barque named Laura, who appealed to the court after James W. Osborn had taken possession of their vessel and refused to return it. The appellants argued that they were entitled to repossession because Osborn did not have legal title or right over the ship, which was registered in New York as a foreign vessel under an American master and crew. The lower court found for Osborn on grounds that he held valid papers from Spanish authorities granting him permission to take possession of any vessels trading with Cuba without proper documents. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and ruled in favor of the appellants; it determined that since there was no evidence showing that Laura had violated any laws by trading with Cuba without proper documentation at time she was seized by Osborn, her owners were legally entitled to repossess her upon payment of damages incurred during her detention.

In the case of William Thomas, Southworth Barnes, Nathaniel Russell and others v. James W. Osborn, the dissenting opinion was that a maritime lien should be recognized for wages due to seamen who had been employed on board a vessel in foreign waters. The majority opinion held that such liens were not valid under US law as they did not exist at common law or by statute; however, the dissent argued that this position failed to take into account international custom and usage which allowed for such claims against vessels owned by citizens of other nations while in their ports. Furthermore, it was argued that allowing these liens would provide an incentive for ship owners to pay their crews promptly and thus benefit both parties involved in maritime commerce - namely those providing labor services as well as those seeking them out - since unpaid wages could be recovered from any property belonging to the employer found within US jurisdiction.