The Venus, Jademersky was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1820. The claimant of the case argued that he had purchased a ship called "Venus" from an individual who did not have legal title to it. He then sold the vessel to another party and received payment for it. However, when he attempted to transfer ownership of the vessel, he discovered that there were two other claimants who also claimed title over it. The court found that since none of these three parties could prove their claim with sufficient evidence or documents, they all held equal rights over the vessel and should share any profits made from its sale equally among them. This ruling established important precedent regarding how disputes involving multiple claims on property should be handled in future cases.

In The Venus, Jademersky, Claimant case of 1820, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel seized by the United States for violating its neutrality laws could be forfeited. A majority of justices held that it could not because there was no proof that the owners had knowledge or intent to violate those laws. However, Justice Story dissented from this opinion and argued that forfeiture should have been allowed in this case as it would serve as an effective deterrent against future violations. He reasoned that since all vessels are presumed to know their own nationality and must abide by applicable neutral rights when sailing on foreign waters, ignorance of these rules cannot excuse them from liability if they do break them. Furthermore, he noted that even though there may have been some doubt about whether or not the vessel actually violated any neutrality laws in this particular instance due to lack of evidence presented at trial; nevertheless allowing forfeiture here would still provide a strong incentive for other ships' captains and owners alike to comply with such regulations in order to avoid similar consequences in future cases.