Katzenberger v. Aberdeen is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Washington. The plaintiff, Katzenberger, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Aberdeen, in 1883. Aberdeen argued that the sale was invalid because the deed was not properly recorded. The Supreme Court held that the deed was valid and that Katzenberger was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that the deed was valid because it was signed by both parties and was witnessed by two other individuals. Furthermore, the Court held that the deed was valid even though it was not recorded, as long as the parties had acted in good faith. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a deed is valid even if it is not recorded, as long as the parties acted in good faith. This principle has been applied in many subsequent cases and is still used today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Katznberger v. Aberdeen, arguing that the majority's decision was an unjustified extension of federal power over state law and a violation of states' rights. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation regulating commerce between two places within a single state, as it did with this case involving oysters harvested from Maryland waters by citizens of Virginia. Furthermore, he argued that if such regulation were allowed then Congress could potentially interfere with any other activity occurring within one state's borders which affected another state or its citizens - something not intended nor authorized by the Constitution. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that allowing this kind of interference would be detrimental to both states and individuals alike since it would allow for too much control over local matters best left to individual states themselves.