Clinkenbeard et al. v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1874. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the Clinkenbeard family over the ownership of a tract of land in the state of Missouri. The Clinkenbeards claimed that they had purchased the land from the United States in 1845, but the United States argued that the land had been sold to another party in 1846. The Supreme Court held that the Clinkenbeards had a valid claim to the land, as the United States had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the land had been sold to another party in 1846. The Court found that the Clinkenbeards had a valid title to the land, and that the United States had failed to prove that the land had been sold to another party. The Court also held that the Clinkenbeards were entitled to damages for the value of the land, as well as for the costs of litigation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Clinkenbeards had a valid claim to the land, and that the United States had failed to prove that the land had been sold to another party. The Court also held that the Clinkenbeards were entitled to damages for the value of the land, as well as for the costs of litigation.

In Clinkenbeard et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two individuals against the United States for damages caused by their wrongful arrest and imprisonment under a state statute that was later declared unconstitutional. The majority of justices held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because it would be contrary to public policy for citizens to sue in one forum when they could have sued in another prior to Congress granting them permission to do so. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that since there were no other forums available at the time of their arrests and imprisonments, allowing them access to a federal court would not violate any public policy considerations or principles of justice. He further argued that denying these individuals access denied them due process rights guaranteed by both state and national constitutions as well as statutes passed by Congress itself which provided for such suits against government officials who acted without authority or beyond their power granted under law.