The Rapid, Perry, Master was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of maritime law and its application to contracts. The court found that when two parties enter into a contract for services on board a vessel at sea, they are subject to the laws of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In this particular case, it was determined that an agreement between Captain William Perry and his crew members constituted such an arrangement. The court held that under these circumstances the captain had authority over his crewmembers in matters relating to their duties aboard ship as well as any disputes arising from those duties or agreements made while on board. Furthermore, it was ruled that any damages resulting from breach of contract could be recovered through legal action in federal courts with admiralty jurisdiction rather than state courts which lack such authority.

In The Rapid, Perry, Master (1814), the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel had been lawfully seized by the United States Navy. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that while it is true that vessels can be seized for violating neutral rights during wartime, this particular seizure did not meet those criteria. He noted that there were no facts to suggest any violation of neutrality and thus concluded that the seizure was unlawful. Furthermore, he stated that even if there had been some evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of the vessel's crew or owners, such as smuggling contraband goods or engaging in piracy activities, these would have constituted criminal offenses rather than violations of neutrality and should have resulted in prosecution instead of immediate capture and forfeiture. In conclusion, Marshall argued against allowing seizures without sufficient proof because they could lead to unjustified deprivation of property rights without due process being followed.