In Eber B. Ward and Stephen Clement, Survivors of Samuel Ward, Deceased v. Philo Chamberlain and John H. Crawford, Claimants of the Propeller Ogdensburgh (1858), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a vessel that had been seized by Confederate forces during the Civil War could be considered abandoned property or if it should still belong to its original owners. The appellants argued that since they were not able to reclaim their ship due to circumstances beyond their control, it should be treated as abandoned property and thus become public domain for anyone who wished to claim it after the war ended. On the other hand, respondents argued that since they had taken possession of said vessel before any hostilities broke out between Union and Confederate forces in 1861, they were entitled ownership rights over said vessel regardless of what happened afterwards with regards to its seizure by Confederate forces or otherwise being unable to reclaim it from them due to military action on either side's part during wartime operations in 1863-64 when such events occurred leading up until 1865 when peace was declared at last ending all hostilities between both sides involved in this conflict known as The American Civil War which lasted four years from 1861 through 1865 respectively speaking here now today concerning this case at hand involving these two parties mentioned herein above accordingly so stated herewith now hereby presented forthrightly within this document written hereinabove just previously noted down below right away immediately following these words spoken aloud just recently uttered moments ago directly preceding these very same sentences typed

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Curtis argued that the claimants had a valid title to the propeller Ogdensburgh. He noted that while it was true that Samuel Ward had purchased and registered the vessel in 1851, he did not have exclusive possession or control over it until 1854 when he paid off all prior liens on it. Thus, any claims made by his survivors after his death in 1856 were invalid as they came too late for him to be considered its rightful owner. Furthermore, Justice Curtis stated that even if Ward's purchase of the vessel could be considered valid at some point before his death, there was no evidence presented during trial which showed how long he held onto ownership rights before passing away. Therefore, since Chamberlain and Crawford had already taken possession of and used the boat for two years prior to Ward's death without any interference from him or anyone else claiming ownership rights over it - their claim should stand as legitimate under admiralty law.