Harver & Another v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States government had the right to take possession of a vessel that had been seized by the United States Navy for alleged violations of the Neutrality Act. The case was brought by the owners of the vessel, who argued that the seizure was illegal and that the government had no right to take possession of the vessel. The Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel, as it was necessary to protect the neutrality of the United States. The Court noted that the Neutrality Act was a valid exercise of the government's power to protect the nation's neutrality, and that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel in order to prevent it from being used to violate the Neutrality Act. The Court also held that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel in order to protect the nation's neutrality, even if the vessel was not actually being used to violate the Neutrality Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel in order to protect the nation's neutrality, even if the vessel was not actually being used to violate the Neutrality Act. The Court noted that the Neutrality Act was a valid exercise of the government's power to protect the nation's neutrality, and that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel in order to prevent it from being used to violate the Neutrality Act.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Harver & Another v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless it is illegal or against public policy, which he did not believe was true in this case. The contract at issue provided for payment of an annuity by one party to another upon certain conditions being met; however, when those conditions were met, the government refused to pay on grounds of sovereign immunity from suit. Justice Field argued that if such contracts could be avoided simply because they are with a governmental entity then no private citizen would ever enter into any kind of agreement with them since there would never be any assurance of enforcement. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had previously passed legislation allowing suits against itself and thus had waived its right to claim sovereign immunity in this instance as well as others like it where similar language was used.