In the United States v. The Ruth Mildred case of 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and salvage rights. The Ruth Mildred was a fishing schooner that had run aground off the coast of Massachusetts in 1928 during a storm, with no crew members aboard at the time it ran ashore. A group of salvors refloated and repaired her without any agreement or contract with her owners for compensation for their services rendered. When they filed an action to recover salvage charges from the vessel's owner, he contested their claim arguing that they were not entitled to such because there was no marine peril as required by maritime law since his ship was abandoned when it ran ashore. The court held that even though there may have been no immediate danger when she went ashore due to being unmanned, this did not preclude potential future perils if left unattended which could lead to total loss or damage beyond repair thus satisfying requirement under maritime law for awarding salvage rights; hence ruling in favor of salvors.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. The Ruth Mildred, it was argued that the seizure of a vessel under Prohibition laws should not be upheld if there is no evidence of intent to violate those laws. In this case, alcohol was found on a boat that had been seized by authorities; however, there was no proof provided that demonstrated an intention to distribute or sell this alcohol in violation of Prohibition regulations. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices, seizing and condemning the vessel based solely on possession without any additional evidence oversteps legal boundaries and infringes upon property rights protected by law. They believed such action could set a dangerous precedent where mere possession could lead to severe penalties without due process or sufficient evidentiary support.