The Atlas case was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a shipowner could be held liable for the negligence of a stevedore. The stevedore had been hired to unload cargo from the ship, and had negligently damaged the cargo while doing so. The shipowner argued that they could not be held liable for the stevedore's negligence, as they had no control over the stevedore's actions. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the shipowner could be held liable for the stevedore's negligence. The Court reasoned that the shipowner had a duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting a competent stevedore, and that the shipowner had failed to do so. The Court also held that the shipowner was responsible for the stevedore's negligence, as the shipowner had retained control over the stevedore's actions. The Court's ruling established that a shipowner can be held liable for the negligence of a stevedore, and that the shipowner must exercise reasonable care in selecting a competent stevedore. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still used today to determine the liability of a shipowner for the negligence of a stevedore.

In the case of The Atlas, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established principles of maritime law and would lead to unjust results in many cases. He noted that it had long been held by courts in England and America alike that when goods are shipped on board a vessel for transportation from one port to another, they become part of the ship itself and cannot be seized or attached while at sea without violating international law. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some legal basis for allowing attachment while at sea, this particular case did not meet those requirements as no actual damage had occurred yet due to non-payment of freight charges. Therefore, he concluded that any attempt by creditors to attach such property before its arrival at its destination should be considered unlawful under both domestic and international laws governing maritime commerce.