The Hypodame was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1867. The case involved a dispute between the owners of a ship, the Hypodame, and the owners of a cargo of cotton that had been shipped on the Hypodame. The cargo owners had sued the ship owners for damages, claiming that the Hypodame had been unseaworthy and that the cargo had been damaged as a result. The Supreme Court held that the ship owners were liable for the damages, as they had failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring that the Hypodame was seaworthy. The Court noted that the ship owners had failed to inspect the ship before it sailed, and had failed to make any repairs that were necessary to ensure the ship's seaworthiness. The Court also held that the ship owners were liable for the damages even though the cargo owners had not provided any proof that the Hypodame was unseaworthy. The Court's decision in The Hypodame established the principle that ship owners are liable for damages caused by their unseaworthy vessels, even if the cargo owners have not provided any proof of the vessel's unseaworthiness. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since The Hypodame, and is still an important part of maritime law today.

In The Hypodame (1867), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been sold in good faith by its owner, without knowledge of any lien or claim against it, could be held liable for debts owed by the previous owner. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that such an outcome would be unjust and contrary to established law. He argued that if the purchaser had no knowledge of any existing claims against the vessel when they purchased it, then they should not be held responsible for those debts. Furthermore, he noted that this decision would have far-reaching implications beyond just this case; if purchasers were found liable for prior debt on vessels they bought in good faith, then buyers might become hesitant to purchase vessels at all out of fear of being saddled with someone else's obligations. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that holding innocent purchasers liable for pre-existing debt ran counter to both justice and public policy.