Harford, Claimant of 480 Pieces of Cotton Bagging v. The United States was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1814. At issue was whether or not the claimant had a valid claim for compensation from the government for cotton bagging that he had provided to them during wartime. The court found that although there were no written contracts between Harford and the government, his verbal agreement with an agent of Congress constituted sufficient evidence to prove his right to payment under implied contract law. Furthermore, they held that since this agreement took place during war time it could be considered as binding even without being reduced into writing due to its urgency at such a critical moment in history. As such, they ruled in favor of Harford and ordered him compensated accordingly for his services rendered.

In Harford, Claimant of 480 Pieces of Cotton Bagging v. The United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a claimant could recover damages for cotton bagging that had been seized by the government during the War of 1812. The majority opinion held that no recovery was available to claimants because Congress had not provided any remedy in its statutes or regulations. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision and argued that it would be unjust to deny compensation when property is taken without due process and against an individual's will. He further noted that while Congress may have failed to provide a specific remedy for such cases, it did not intend to bar all claims for relief under common law principles; therefore, he concluded there should be some form of redress available in these circumstances. Ultimately, his dissent went unheeded as the majority opinion prevailed and no compensation was awarded to Harford or other similarly situated individuals who lost their property during wartime seizures by the federal government.