The Nuestra Senora de Regla was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of salvage rights. The case involved a Spanish vessel, the Nuestra Senora de Regla, which had been wrecked off the coast of Florida in 1868. The vessel was owned by a Spanish company, and the company had hired a salvage company to recover the vessel and its cargo. The salvage company was successful in recovering the vessel and its cargo, but the Spanish company refused to pay the salvage company for their services. The salvage company then sued the Spanish company in the Supreme Court, claiming that they were entitled to salvage rights under the law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the salvage company, finding that they were entitled to salvage rights under the law. The Court held that the salvage company had acted in good faith and had taken reasonable steps to recover the vessel and its cargo. The Court also held that the Spanish company had acted in bad faith by refusing to pay the salvage company for their services. The Court also held that the salvage company was entitled to a reasonable fee for their services, and that the Spanish company was liable for the payment of such a fee. The Court also held that the salvage company was entitled to a lien on the vessel and its cargo for the payment of the salvage fee.

In the case of The Nuestra Senora de Regla, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Spanish vessel that had been seized by US forces during the Civil War could be considered a prize of war. In an 8-1 decision, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that as Spain was not at war with either side in the conflict and therefore did not have any belligerent rights to claim prizes from either party. He further argued that since there were no laws or treaties between Spain and either side in the conflict which allowed for such seizures, it would be wrong to allow them under international law. Furthermore, he noted that even if such seizures were permissible under international law they should still only apply when both sides are actually engaged in hostilities against each other; otherwise it would amount to piracy on behalf of one nation against another. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while Congress may have passed legislation allowing for these types of seizures during wartime situations involving two nations at odds with each other this particular situation did not meet those criteria and thus should not be allowed.