The Bird of Paradise was a United States Supreme Court case that centered around the interpretation of an insurance policy. The plaintiff, John H. Williams, had purchased a marine insurance policy from the defendant, Thomas J. Oakford & Co., to cover his ship called “Bird of Paradise” while it was on its voyage from New York to San Francisco and back again. During the return trip, partway through Panama Canal construction work being done by French contractors caused damage to the vessel which resulted in its sinking off Acapulco Bay in Mexico. Williams sought compensation for his losses under his marine insurance policy but Oakford refused payment citing that they were not liable as per their contract with him due to certain exclusions listed within it regarding damages incurred during war or civil strife or any other act outside their control such as those committed by foreign governments or contractors working on behalf of them like what happened here with France's involvement in Panama Canal construction work at this time period (1866). The court ultimately sided with Oakford and held that since these events occurred beyond their control they could not be held responsible for paying out claims related thereto even though there may have been some negligence involved on behalf of France's contractor who damaged Williams' vessel leading up to its eventual sinking off Acapulco Bay in Mexico thus ending this US Supreme Court case known as "The Bird Of Paradise".

In The Bird of Paradise, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a ship called "The Bird of Paradise" could be considered an American vessel. The majority opinion held that it could not because the vessel had been built in England and registered there before being brought to America by its owner. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds. First, he argued that since the vessel had been purchased by an American citizen and used exclusively for his own purposes while in America, it should be considered an American-owned ship regardless of where it was originally constructed or registered. Second, he noted that even if the original construction and registration were taken into consideration when determining ownership status under maritime law, then those facts alone did not necessarily mean that a foreign nation retained exclusive rights over such vessels; rather they merely indicated who would have jurisdiction over any disputes concerning them at sea. Thus Justice Field concluded that “the fact of building abroad does not deprive [a] party...of all right to claim protection as an American citizen” when using such ships within U.S waters