The Frances, Boyer, Master (Gillespie's Claim) was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1814. The case involved a dispute between James Gillespie and William Boyer over ownership of two vessels called the Frances and the Master. Gillespie claimed that he had purchased both ships from France during wartime but did not receive title to them due to an embargo imposed on French vessels entering American ports at that time. He argued that since he had paid for them, they should be considered his property despite not having legal title to them. The court ruled in favor of Gillespie, finding that although he did not have legal title to either vessel, his purchase gave him equitable rights which were sufficient enough for him to claim ownership of both ships.

In The Frances, Boyer, Master (Gillespie's Claim), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a master of a vessel could be held liable for damages caused by his negligence. Justice Johnson delivered the dissenting opinion in which he argued that masters should not be held responsible for any damage caused by their negligence because they are merely agents of the owners and do not have control over how vessels are operated. He further argued that it would be unjust to hold them liable since they had no authority or power to prevent such accidents from occurring. Furthermore, he contended that if masters were made accountable then this would lead to an increase in insurance premiums and other costs associated with operating ships. Ultimately, Justice Johnson concluded that holding masters responsible for negligent acts committed while on duty was contrary to established maritime law and public policy considerations.