In the case of Wood v. United States in 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning maritime law and salvage rights. The dispute arose when two vessels owned by the same company were stranded near each other during a storm off Alaska's coast. One vessel was abandoned while its crew went to assist their sister ship that had also run aground but contained valuable cargo including copper ore and salmon products. When they returned to their original ship, another party had already begun salvaging it, claiming ownership under maritime salvage laws which state that an abandoned vessel can be claimed by those who save it from peril at sea. The court held that despite appearing to abandon their first ship, the crew never intended permanent desertion as they planned to return after aiding their second distressed vessel; thus maintaining proprietary interest over it throughout this period. Therefore, although some compensation for efforts made by third-party salvagers was deemed appropriate due to traditional encouragement of such rescue endeavors in maritime law; full possession rights could not be granted as abandonment wasn't absolute or intentional.

In the dissenting opinion for Wood v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider whether or not a reasonable person would have been aware of their wrongdoing in this case. He believed that the defendant should only be held liable if they knowingly and willingly committed an illegal act. In his view, the court had wrongly convicted someone who may have been ignorant of their crime due to unclear laws and regulations regarding mail fraud at that time. This interpretation could potentially lead to unjust convictions based on ignorance rather than intentional criminal behavior, which he saw as contrary to principles of justice and fairness under U.S law.