In the United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Company et al., 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over maritime law and shipping contracts during wartime. The case arose when an American ship owned by the American-Asiatic Steamship Company was chartered to transport cargo from New York to Vladivostok, Russia in 1914 but could not complete its journey due to World War I's outbreak which made it dangerous for neutral ships like those of America at that time. The company argued that this constituted 'force majeure', relieving them of their contractual obligations under what is known as "frustration of purpose". However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that war risks were foreseeable and should have been included in their contract if they wished to be exempted from such circumstances; hence they were still liable for breach of contract.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Company et al., 1916, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the steamship company was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were significant errors made during trial proceedings which had unfairly prejudiced the jury against the defendants. They also disagreed with how certain evidence was interpreted and felt it did not conclusively prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. Furthermore, they contended that some of this evidence should have been deemed inadmissible due to its questionable relevance or reliability. Therefore, they concluded that justice would be better served if a new trial were ordered where these issues could be properly addressed.