The Juniata was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1876. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the steamship Juniata and the owners of the schooner Mary E. Smith. The Juniata had collided with the Mary E. Smith, causing damage to the schooner. The owners of the Mary E. Smith sued the owners of the Juniata for damages. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Juniata were liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court reasoned that the Juniata had been negligent in its navigation and had failed to take proper precautions to avoid the collision. The Court also held that the owners of the Juniata were liable for the damages even though the Mary E. Smith had been negligent in its navigation as well. The Court also held that the owners of the Juniata were liable for the damages even though the Mary E. Smith had been negligent in its navigation as well. The Court reasoned that the Juniata had a greater duty to take proper precautions to avoid the collision, and thus was liable for the damages caused by the collision. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the owners of the Juniata were liable for the damages caused by the collision with the Mary E. Smith. The Court reasoned that the Juniata had a greater duty to take proper precautions to avoid the collision, and thus was liable for the damages caused by the collision.

In The Juniata, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel called the Juniata had been legally sold and transferred by its former owners. In an opinion delivered by Justice Miller, the majority of justices held that there had been no valid transfer of title because certain formalities required under maritime law were not followed. However, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that although some technical requirements may have not been met during the sale process, it should still be considered valid due to other evidence presented showing intent for ownership transfer. He noted that all parties involved acted as if they believed a legal sale occurred and thus this should be sufficient proof for upholding it. Furthermore he stated that when dealing with matters such as these involving vessels at sea or on navigable waters where time is often limited and circumstances can change quickly; strict adherence to every formality would lead to unnecessary delays which could cause further harm or damage in many cases. Therefore he concluded that even though some technical aspects may have not been fulfilled here; based on all other facts presented it was clear enough intention existed from both sides for a legal transfer of title so this should be upheld accordingly