The Dove was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the owners of a vessel, the Dove, and the owners of a cargo of cotton that had been shipped on the vessel. The owners of the cotton had sued the owners of the vessel for damages, claiming that the vessel had been unseaworthy and that the owners had failed to properly maintain it. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the vessel were liable for the damages caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The Court found that the owners had a duty to maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition and that they had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the owners of the cargo were entitled to recover damages for the loss of the cargo due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The Court's decision in The Dove established the principle that the owners of a vessel have a duty to maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition and that they are liable for damages caused by their failure to do so. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is still an important part of maritime law today.

The Supreme Court case of The Dove involved a dispute between the owners of two vessels, both called “The Dove”. The original owner had registered his vessel in England and then sold it to an American citizen who also registered it with the United States government. When a collision occurred between the two ships, each party claimed ownership over their respective vessels. In its decision, the majority held that since one was registered first in England and later re-registered by an American citizen, only one could be considered as having valid title to the ship; thus granting priority to English registration laws over those of America's. In dissent however Justice Field argued that while English law may have been applicable when determining which vessel had prior rights on open seas or navigable waters within British jurisdiction, this did not necessarily apply for other areas such as rivers or harbors where local laws would take precedence instead. He further noted that even if there were no conflicting local regulations present at time of incident then international maritime law should still be applied rather than any single nation's particular statutes due to its universal nature among all seafaring nations regardless of origin or allegiance.