The Columbia was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1870. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Columbia, a steamboat, and the owners of the steamer, the St. Lawrence. The Columbia had been damaged by the St. Lawrence while the two vessels were navigating the St. Lawrence River. The owners of the Columbia sued the owners of the St. Lawrence for damages. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Columbia were entitled to damages for the damage caused by the St. Lawrence. The Court reasoned that the St. Lawrence had a duty to exercise reasonable care in navigating the river, and that the St. Lawrence had breached that duty by failing to take proper precautions to avoid the collision. The Court also held that the owners of the Columbia were entitled to damages for the loss of the vessel, as well as for the loss of its cargo. The Court's decision in The Columbia established the principle that a vessel has a duty to exercise reasonable care in navigating a river, and that a vessel which breaches that duty is liable for damages caused by the breach. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since The Columbia, and is still an important part of maritime law today.

In The Columbia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been sold in violation of an Act of Congress could be considered a valid sale. In this case, the majority opinion held that the sale was invalid and thus did not confer title upon the purchaser. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that while it may have been illegal for certain individuals to purchase vessels under such circumstances, there is no evidence that Congress intended to prevent all sales regardless of who purchased them or how they were conducted. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had wanted to make such purchases voidable then it would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Finally, he pointed out that since there was no dispute as to ownership prior to the sale in question here and since both parties acted in good faith throughout its execution - including paying taxes on their respective interests - then any attempt by courts now retroactively nullifying these transactions would be unjustified and unfair.