Botiller v. Dominguez was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two Mexican citizens, Botiller and Dominguez, over the ownership of a piece of land in California. Botiller claimed that he had purchased the land from the Mexican government in 1844, while Dominguez argued that he had inherited the land from his father in 1848. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Botiller, finding that the Mexican government had validly transferred the land to him in 1844. The Court held that the Mexican government had the authority to transfer the land to Botiller, and that Dominguez had no legal claim to the land. The Court also held that the Mexican government's transfer of the land to Botiller was valid under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which had established the boundary between the United States and Mexico. The decision in Botiller v. Dominguez was significant because it established the principle that the Mexican government had the authority to transfer land to individuals, and that such transfers were valid under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving land disputes between Mexican citizens and the United States.

In the Supreme Court case of Botiller v. Dominguez, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of California law rather than federal common law. He noted that while California had adopted a statute providing for intestate succession by illegitimate children, this did not necessarily mean that such children were entitled to inherit under federal common law as well. Furthermore, he argued that even if they were so entitled, it would be up to Congress and not the courts to decide whether or not such inheritance rights should be recognized at all. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that since there was no clear indication from Congress regarding how illegitimate children should be treated with respect to inheritance rights under federal common law, then any decisions made by the court in this regard should have been guided solely by principles of equity and justice rather than state statutes or other legal precedents.