Bevans v. United States was a Supreme Court case in 1871 that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government was liable for damages caused by a receiver appointed by the court. The case arose when the receiver, appointed by the court to manage the estate of a bankrupt debtor, sold the debtor's property without the debtor's consent. The debtor sued the United States for damages, arguing that the receiver was acting as an agent of the United States and that the United States was therefore liable for the damages caused by the receiver's actions. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the receiver's actions. The Court reasoned that the receiver was not an agent of the United States, but rather an officer of the court, and that the United States was not responsible for the actions of the receiver. The Court further held that the receiver was not liable for the damages caused by his actions, as he was acting in good faith and in accordance with the court's orders. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the receiver's actions, as the receiver was not an agent of the United States and was acting in good faith and in accordance with the court's orders.

In Bevans v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to bring an action against the government for money due on bonds issued by Congress. The majority opinion held that such actions were not allowed under existing law and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that receivers should be able to sue in cases where it is necessary to protect their interests as custodians of property belonging to creditors or other parties involved in litigation. He further argued that allowing such suits would provide greater protection for those who have entrusted their assets into receivers' hands and ensure they receive what is owed them without having to resorting costly legal proceedings against powerful entities like governments or corporations.