This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the owners of two steamboats, the Sabine and the Richmond. The Sabine was owned by Pierre S. Wiltz, the Public Administrator of Sarah C. Shirley, deceased, and the Richmond was owned by Nathaniel S. Green. The Sabine had been damaged by the Richmond while the two boats were navigating the Mississippi River. The Sabine's owners sued the Richmond's owners for damages, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Richmond's owners were liable for the damages caused to the Sabine. The Court found that the Richmond had been negligent in its navigation of the river, and that the Sabine's owners were entitled to compensation for the damages caused. The Court also held that the Sabine's owners were entitled to recover the costs of repairs to the Sabine, as well as the costs of any lost profits due to the damage caused by the Richmond. The Court's decision established the principle that a vessel's owners are liable for any damages caused by their vessel, regardless of whether the damage was caused intentionally or through negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still used today to determine liability in cases involving maritime accidents.

In the case of The Steamboat Sabine, Etc., Pierre S. Wiltz, Public Admr. Of Sarah C. Shirley, Deceased et al v The Steamboat Richmond, Etc., Nathaniel S. Green et al., the dissenting opinion was that a vessel owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an act of God or other force majeure event beyond their control and which could not have been prevented through reasonable care and diligence on their part. In this particular case it was determined that the steamboat Sabine had collided with another vessel due to strong winds and currents outside of its captain’s control; however, under maritime law at the time (the Harter Act), vessels were still responsible for any damage they caused regardless if it was out of their control or not as long as there had been some negligence in navigating them safely prior to such events occurring - even if those events were unavoidable acts of nature like storms or high tides etc.. Justice Field argued against this interpretation stating that holding ship owners accountable for these types of occurrences would lead to absurd results since no amount of cautionary measures taken before hand could prevent them from happening anyway so why should they be punished? He further stated that while he agreed with punishing negligent behavior when it came to navigation safety but felt strongly about protecting innocent parties who may find themselves in situations where forces beyond their power are causing harm despite all efforts made beforehand to avoid such outcomes