The Charles Morgan case was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of maritime law. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Charles Morgan, a steamship, and the owners of the schooner, the Mary E. Smith. The dispute arose when the Charles Morgan collided with the Mary E. Smith, causing damage to the schooner. The owners of the Mary E. Smith sued the owners of the Charles Morgan for damages. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Charles Morgan were liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court reasoned that the owners of the Charles Morgan had a duty to exercise reasonable care and caution in navigating their vessel, and that they had failed to do so. The Court also held that the owners of the Charles Morgan were liable for the damages even though the collision was caused by the negligence of the Mary E. Smith's crew. The Court's decision established the principle that the owners of a vessel are liable for damages caused by their vessel, even if the damages were caused by the negligence of another vessel. This principle is still applied in maritime law today.

In The Charles Morgan, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been seized by the United States for violating its neutrality laws could be released. In an 8-1 decision, the court held that it could not. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress did not have authority to pass such a law and thus any seizure of property based on this law was unconstitutional. He further argued that even if Congress did have such power, there were no facts presented in this case to show why the vessel should be detained or forfeited as punishment for violating neutrality laws. As such, he concluded that it would be unjust and oppressive to deny release of the vessel without proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.