This case was a dispute between the City of East St. Louis and the United States over the ownership of certain lands. The City of East St. Louis had purchased the lands from the United States in 1867, but the United States later claimed that the lands had been improperly acquired and sought to reclaim them. The United States argued that the lands had been acquired in violation of the 1866 Act of Congress, which prohibited the sale of public lands to municipalities. The Supreme Court held that the 1866 Act of Congress did not apply to the lands in question, as they had been acquired prior to the passage of the Act. The Court further held that the City of East St. Louis had acquired the lands in good faith and had acted in accordance with the laws of the United States. The Court concluded that the United States was not entitled to reclaim the lands and that the City of East St. Louis was the rightful owner. The Court also held that the United States was liable for damages to the City of East St. Louis for its wrongful attempt to reclaim the lands.

In East St. Louis & the Treasurer of East St. Louis v. United States ex rel Zebley, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bond issued by the City of East St. Louis to pay for improvements in 1871 could be enforced against it despite its insolvency and subsequent reorganization under state law in 1874-1875. The majority opinion held that since there had been no express provision made for payment when the bonds were issued, they were not enforceable against the city after its reorganization due to insolvency; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that as long as there was sufficient consideration given at issuance and delivery of said bonds (which he believed had occurred), then their validity should remain intact regardless of any later changes or events; secondly, he contended that even if such consideration did not exist initially upon issuance and delivery (as alleged by some parties), then it would have been created through subsequent payments made on behalf of those same bonds prior to their maturity date - thus making them valid claims which must be honored by all parties involved including both creditors and debtors alike.