The Adriatic was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Adriatic, a steamship, and the owners of the cargo it was carrying. The cargo owners had contracted with the Adriatic to transport their goods from New York to Liverpool, England. However, the Adriatic was damaged in a storm and had to be towed into Halifax, Nova Scotia. The cargo owners then sued the Adriatic's owners for breach of contract, claiming that the Adriatic had failed to deliver the goods to their destination. The Supreme Court held that the Adriatic's owners were not liable for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the Adriatic had been damaged by an act of God, and that the Adriatic's owners had done all they could to deliver the goods to their destination. The Court also held that the Adriatic's owners had acted in good faith and had not been negligent in their duties. The Adriatic case is an important precedent in contract law. It established that a party cannot be held liable for breach of contract if they have acted in good faith and have done all they can to fulfill their obligations. It also established that a party cannot be held liable for damages caused by an act of God.

In The Adriatic, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel had been legally seized by the United States. The majority opinion held that it had not been properly seized and thus could not be condemned as prize of war. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there were sufficient facts to support a finding of lawful seizure and condemnation. He argued that the evidence showed conclusively that the vessel was engaged in hostile acts against American vessels during wartime, which constituted an act of war under international law. Furthermore, he noted that even if some technicalities may have prevented its proper capture or condemnation at sea, these issues should not prevent its ultimate forfeiture after being brought into port for adjudication before a court-martial tribunal. In conclusion, Justice Field believed there was ample evidence to support condemning the vessel as prize of war and reversing his colleagues' ruling on appeal would be appropriate given all circumstances surrounding this case.