The Adelia was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Adelia, a vessel, and the owners of the cargo it was carrying. The cargo owners had contracted with the vessel owners to transport their goods from New York to San Francisco. However, the vessel was damaged during the voyage and the cargo owners refused to pay the agreed-upon freight charges. The vessel owners then sued the cargo owners for the unpaid freight charges. The Supreme Court held that the vessel owners were entitled to the freight charges, as the damage to the vessel was not caused by the negligence of the vessel owners. The Court noted that the vessel owners had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the vessel and its cargo, and that the damage was caused by an unforeseeable event. The Court also held that the cargo owners were not entitled to any damages for the delay in delivery of the goods, as the delay was caused by the unforeseeable event. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the vessel owners were entitled to the freight charges, and the cargo owners were not entitled to any damages for the delay in delivery of the goods.

In The Adelia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been sold in good faith by its owner could be held liable for damages caused by an earlier collision. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion of the court, arguing that under maritime law, vessels are not liable for damages resulting from collisions unless they were at fault. He argued that since there was no evidence of negligence or fault on behalf of either party involved in this case, neither should be held responsible for any damage incurred as a result of their actions. Furthermore, he noted that it would be unjust to hold one party accountable when both acted with reasonable care and due diligence during the incident. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that neither vessel should bear responsibility for any losses suffered as a result of their encounter and urged his colleagues to reverse the lower court's decision which found otherwise.