The Vanderbilt was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1867. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the steamship Vanderbilt and the owners of the steamship Manhattan. The Manhattan had collided with the Vanderbilt, causing damage to the Vanderbilt. The owners of the Vanderbilt sued the owners of the Manhattan for damages. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Manhattan were liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court reasoned that the owners of the Manhattan had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the navigation of their vessel, and that they had failed to do so. The Court also held that the owners of the Manhattan were liable for the damages even though the collision was caused by the negligence of the Vanderbilt's captain. The Vanderbilt case established the principle that the owners of a vessel are liable for damages caused by the negligence of their vessel, even if the negligence of the other vessel's captain was a contributing factor. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still the law today.

In The Vanderbilt, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties to transport goods on a vessel owned by one of them was valid. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it did not meet certain requirements for contracts involving vessels. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that the terms of the agreement were clear and unambiguous and should be enforced as written. He noted that while there are certain rules governing maritime contracts, they do not apply when both parties have agreed in writing to specific terms regarding their obligations under such an agreement. Furthermore, he argued that if courts refuse to enforce agreements simply because they do not conform to some general rule or principle then commerce would suffer greatly due to uncertainty about what is legally binding and what is not.