The Peterhoff was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a foreign vessel could be seized and sold in the United States for a debt owed to a citizen of the United States. The case was brought before the Supreme Court by the owners of the Peterhoff, a foreign vessel, who argued that the vessel could not be seized and sold in the United States for a debt owed to a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the vessel could be seized and sold in the United States for a debt owed to a citizen of the United States. The Court reasoned that the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and that the debt was a valid claim against the vessel. The Court also held that the vessel could be sold in the United States for the debt owed to the citizen of the United States. The Court further held that the vessel could not be sold in a foreign country for the debt owed to the citizen of the United States. This decision established the principle that foreign vessels can be seized and sold in the United States for debts owed to citizens of the United States.

In The Peterhoff, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel that had been sold by its owner to another party could be seized and held as security for debts owed by the original owner. In a 5-4 decision, the majority opinion found that such an action was not permissible under existing law. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that it should be possible to seize and hold vessels belonging to debtors who have already transferred ownership of them in order to secure payment of their debts. He reasoned that allowing creditors this right would provide them with some measure of protection against unscrupulous debtors who might otherwise attempt to avoid paying what they owe through transferring ownership or disposing of assets without informing their creditors. Furthermore, Field noted that similar laws were already being applied successfully in other countries at the time and thus there was no reason why such measures should not also be allowed within U.S jurisdiction as well.