The United States v. Atlantic Dredging Company case in 1919 revolved around a dispute over the payment for dredging services performed by the Atlantic Dredging Company under contract with the U.S government. The company claimed that it was owed additional compensation beyond what had been agreed upon due to unforeseen difficulties and delays during their work on Savannah Harbor, Georgia. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that they were not entitled to extra pay as per their "unit price" contract which did not account for such contingencies. The court held that any unexpected obstacles or hardships encountered during performance of a job do not alter contractual obligations unless explicitly stated within said contract.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Atlantic Dredging Company, W. B. Brooks, Agent argued that the majority's decision was too broad and did not take into account specific circumstances surrounding each individual dredging operation. The dissent felt that by ruling all dredging operations as inherently dangerous, it unfairly penalized companies who took precautions to ensure safety and minimized environmental impact. They also disagreed with the interpretation of maritime law applied in this case, arguing it should be more narrowly defined to only include activities directly related to navigation or commerce on navigable waters rather than any activity taking place on these waters such as dredging operations for land reclamation purposes which they believed fell under state jurisdiction instead.