The Frances, Boyer, Master (Dunham and Randolph's Claim) was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1815. The case involved two vessels that were captured during the War of 1812. One vessel belonged to an American citizen named Dunham and the other belonged to a British subject named Randolph. Both ships had been seized by French privateers while they were sailing from England to America with cargo belonging to their respective owners. The issue before the court was whether or not these captures constituted piracy under international law since France had declared war on Britain but not on America at this time. After considering all arguments presented, including those from both sides as well as amicus curiae briefs submitted by several foreign governments, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that although there may have been some legal ambiguity surrounding this particular situation due to its unique circumstances, it did not constitute piracy under international law because France had only declared war against Britain at this time and thus could not be held responsible for any actions taken against American citizens or property without first declaring war against them as well.

In the dissenting opinion of The Frances, Boyer, Master case (Dunham and Randolph's Claim), Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a court should not be able to decide on matters of equity when there is no legal precedent. He believed that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to make decisions based solely on their own discretion without any guidance from existing laws or statutes. Furthermore, he asserted that if Congress had intended for such cases to be decided in this manner then they would have provided specific instructions as part of the law. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall felt strongly that courts should only rule according to established laws and precedents rather than making up new rules as they go along.