In Talbot v. Ship Amelia, Seeman, Claimant (1801), the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an admiralty dispute between two parties over a ship called “Amelia” and its cargo. The plaintiff in this case was Thomas Talbot who had purchased the vessel from William Seeman for $2,000. However, after taking possession of it he discovered that there were several unpaid debts attached to it which amounted to more than double what he paid for it. He then sued Seeman claiming that his purchase did not include these debts and sought reimbursement for them as well as damages incurred due to their existence on the vessel when he bought it. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Talbot finding that since no mention was made by either party regarding any existing debt at time of sale; they should be considered separate from the transaction itself and thus remain with seller rather than buyer making him liable for them instead.

In Talbot v. Ship Amelia, Seeman, Claimant (1801), Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. He argued that a ship's master should not be held liable for damages caused by his vessel in cases where he had no knowledge or control over the circumstances leading to those damages. In this case, it was determined that Captain Seeman had no knowledge of any defect in his ship which could have contributed to an accident and thus should not be held responsible for any resulting losses incurred by Mr. Talbot as a result of said accident. Furthermore, Marshall noted that if such liability were imposed on captains without their fault or negligence then they would become subject to "unlimited responsibility" and would likely suffer great financial loss due to potential claims against them even when there is no evidence suggesting they are at fault for an incident involving their vessels.