The Northern Belle was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Northern Belle, a steamboat, and the owners of the steamboat's cargo. The cargo owners had contracted with the steamboat to transport their goods from New York to New Orleans. However, the steamboat was damaged during the voyage and the cargo owners sued the steamboat owners for damages. The Supreme Court held that the steamboat owners were liable for the damages caused to the cargo owners. The Court reasoned that the steamboat owners had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the vessel and that they had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the vessel. The Court also held that the steamboat owners were liable for the damages caused to the cargo owners even though the steamboat owners had not been negligent in the operation of the vessel. The Court's decision in The Northern Belle established the principle that a vessel owner is liable for damages caused to cargo owners even if the vessel owner was not negligent in the operation of the vessel. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since The Northern Belle and is still applicable today.

In The Northern Belle case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel that had been seized by the United States government for violating customs laws could be sold to pay off its debts. The majority opinion held that since there were no specific statutes authorizing such sales, it was not permissible under existing law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while Congress may not have explicitly authorized such sales of vessels seized for violations of customs laws, they did authorize similar sales when vessels were forfeited due to piracy or other crimes against the United States. He further argued that if these types of seizures and subsequent sale are allowed then those involving customs violations should also be allowed as long as all creditors are paid first before any proceeds from the sale go to satisfy any fines imposed on the vessel's owner. Therefore he concluded that it would be within Congress' power to allow for such a sale in this instance and thus upheld his dissent from the majority decision.