This case was a dispute between the Collector of Customs for the Port of New York and the administratrix of the estate of a deceased importer. The Collector had seized a shipment of cigars from the importer, claiming that the cigars had been imported in violation of the Tariff Act of 1883. The administratrix argued that the Collector had no right to seize the cigars, as the importer had died before the seizure took place. The Supreme Court held that the Collector had the right to seize the cigars, as the Tariff Act of 1883 gave the Collector the authority to seize goods imported in violation of the law. The Court noted that the Collector's authority was not limited to goods imported by living persons, and that the Collector had the right to seize goods imported by a deceased person. The Court also noted that the Collector's authority was not limited to goods imported by the deceased person himself, but extended to goods imported by his estate. The Court concluded that the Collector had the right to seize the cigars in question.

In Badger v. Gutierrez's Administratrix, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction because there was no diversity in citizenship between the parties and thus no basis for exercising its power under Article III of the Constitution. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress has broad authority to confer original jurisdiction on federal courts and should be allowed to do so in cases such as this one where it is clear that both parties are citizens of different states. He argued further that if Congress were prevented from doing so then many important questions would remain unresolved due to lack of access to justice through state courts or other means. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that allowing Congress' authority in these matters would serve "the interests of justice" better than denying them altogether.