The Harrisburg was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the steamship Harrisburg and the owners of the steamship City of New York. The Harrisburg had been damaged in a collision with the City of New York, and the owners of the Harrisburg sought to recover damages from the owners of the City of New York. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Harrisburg were entitled to recover damages from the owners of the City of New York. The Court found that the owners of the City of New York had been negligent in the operation of their vessel, and that the negligence had caused the collision. The Court also held that the owners of the Harrisburg were not contributorily negligent, and that they were entitled to recover damages for the damage to their vessel. The Court also held that the owners of the City of New York were liable for the costs of the repairs to the Harrisburg, as well as for the loss of use of the vessel while it was being repaired. The Court also held that the owners of the City of New York were liable for the costs of the repairs to the Harrisburg, as well as for the loss of use of the vessel while it was being repaired. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the owners of the Harrisburg were entitled to recover damages from the owners of the City of New York for the damage to their vessel, as well as for the costs of the repairs and the loss of use of the vessel while it was being repaired.

In the case of The Harrisburg, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision to uphold an award of damages for breach of contract was wrong because it failed to consider whether or not there had been any actual damage caused by the breach. According to Field, if no actual damage could be proven then awarding damages would amount to unjust enrichment and should not be allowed under law. Furthermore, he argued that even if some kind of injury had occurred as a result of the breach, it should have been limited in scope since both parties were aware at all times that they were dealing with hazardous cargo which carried inherent risks. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that awarding damages without proof of actual harm done was contrary to established legal principles and therefore should not stand.