The America was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the America, a steamship, and the owners of the cargo it was carrying. The cargo owners had contracted with the America's owners to transport their goods from New York to Liverpool. However, the America was damaged in a storm and had to be towed into port in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The cargo owners then sued the America's owners for breach of contract, arguing that the America had failed to deliver the goods to their destination. The Supreme Court held that the America's owners were not liable for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the America's owners had acted in good faith and had taken all reasonable steps to protect the cargo. Furthermore, the Court held that the storm was an act of God and that the America's owners could not be held responsible for the damage caused by the storm. The Court also noted that the America's owners had taken all reasonable steps to minimize the damage and had acted in a manner consistent with the terms of the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the America's owners were not liable for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the storm was an act of God and that the America's owners had taken all reasonable steps to protect the cargo and minimize the damage.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in The America case. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice, as it allowed a party who had been found guilty of wrongfully taking possession of another person's property to keep it without paying for its value. Field noted that this result would be absurd if applied generally, since no one should be able to take something from someone else without compensating them for their loss. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were other remedies available which could have been used instead of allowing the defendant to retain ownership over what they had taken unlawfully. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that the court should not have reached such an unjust outcome by permitting a wrongful taker to keep what they had taken without making any payment or providing some form of compensation for its value.