The S. C. Tryon was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the S. C. Tryon, a steamship, and the owners of the steamship's cargo. The cargo owners had contracted with the steamship to transport their goods from New York to San Francisco. However, the steamship was damaged during the voyage and the cargo owners sued the steamship owners for damages. The Supreme Court held that the steamship owners were liable for the damages caused to the cargo owners. The Court reasoned that the steamship owners had a duty to exercise reasonable care in transporting the cargo and that they had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the steamship. The Court also held that the steamship owners were liable for the damages caused to the cargo owners even though the steamship owners had not been negligent in their maintenance of the steamship. The Court's decision in The S. C. Tryon established that steamship owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care in transporting cargo and that they are liable for damages caused to cargo owners even if they were not negligent in their maintenance of the steamship. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the liability of steamship owners for damages caused to cargo owners.

In the case of The S.C. Tryon, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a ship's master had acted in good faith when he sold cargo to pay for repairs and supplies necessary for his vessel's safe return home. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that under maritime law, the master should not be held liable if it can be proven that he acted in good faith and without negligence or fraud when selling part of the cargo to cover expenses incurred while repairing his ship at sea. He argued that such an action is common practice among seafaring vessels and should not result in liability on behalf of their masters unless there is evidence proving otherwise. Furthermore, Justice Field maintained that Congress has never passed any legislation prohibiting this type of sale by masters at sea; thus, they should not be held accountable simply because they have done something which has been accepted as standard operating procedure within their industry for centuries prior to this case being brought before court.