The Great Republic was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Great Republic, a steamship, and the owners of the steamship's cargo. The cargo owners had sued the steamship owners for damages caused by the steamship's negligence. The steamship owners argued that they were not liable for the damages because the cargo owners had failed to provide the steamship with a proper bill of lading. The Supreme Court held that the steamship owners were liable for the damages caused by their negligence. The Court reasoned that the bill of lading was not necessary to establish the steamship owners' liability, as the cargo owners had already established a contract with the steamship owners by paying for the shipment of their goods. The Court further held that the steamship owners had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the handling of the cargo, and that they had breached this duty by failing to do so. The Court's decision in The Great Republic established the principle that steamship owners are liable for damages caused by their negligence, even if the cargo owners have not provided a proper bill of lading. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the liability of steamship owners for damages caused by their negligence.

In The Great Republic, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a ship's master had authority to sell cargo in order to pay for necessary repairs. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that the master did not have such authority and that any sale of goods should be done by an agent appointed by the owner or consignee. He reasoned that it would be unfair for owners or consignees who were unaware of their property being sold without their consent and thus unable to protect themselves from potential losses due to negligence on behalf of the master. Furthermore, he argued that allowing masters this power could lead them into situations where they are tempted into making decisions which benefit themselves rather than those whom they represent. As such, Justice Field concluded that it is best if all sales are made through agents appointed by either owners or consignees so as to ensure fairness and accountability in these transactions.