In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Baptiste Guillem, Claimant of One Box of Specie, the court was asked to decide whether a box containing specie (coins) found on board a French vessel in 1848 should be forfeited to the U.S. government or returned to its rightful owner, Baptiste Guillem. The lower court had ruled that it belonged to Mr. Guillem and ordered it restored to him; however, the U.S., appealing this decision argued that since France had been at war with Mexico when Mr. Guillem shipped his box from Vera Cruz in 1847 he could not claim ownership as an enemy alien under existing laws and treaties between France and Mexico at that time . After considering all arguments presented by both parties, including those concerning international law principles such as neutrality rights for foreign vessels during wartime ,the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court stating that there was no evidence showing any hostile intent on behalf of Mr..Guillen nor did they find sufficient proof linking him directly with either belligerent party involved in this conflict thus allowing him retain possession over his property without interference from either country's government .

In the case of The United States v. Baptiste Guillem, Claimant of One Box of Specie, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a box containing specie (coins) found in 1848 belonged to the claimant or to the United States. The majority opinion held that it belonged to the government because it had been abandoned on public land and no one had come forward for more than two years after its discovery claiming ownership. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that there were insufficient facts presented by either party as evidence regarding who owned said box and thus he could not conclude definitively which party should be awarded possession. He further argued that if any presumption existed at all then it should have been in favor of Guillem since he was able to prove his claim before anyone else did so and also provided testimony from witnesses attesting to his ownership prior to its abandonment on public land. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded that due process required a full trial where both parties would be allowed present their respective cases before judgment is rendered; therefore, he voted against awarding possession solely based upon circumstantial evidence without allowing each side an opportunity for rebuttal or defense first.