Kohl et al. v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the Kohl family over the ownership of a parcel of land in Wisconsin. The Kohl family had purchased the land from the United States in 1848, but the United States later claimed that the land had been improperly sold and sought to reclaim it. The Supreme Court held that the United States had failed to prove that the land had been improperly sold, and that the Kohl family was the rightful owner of the land. The Court noted that the United States had failed to provide any evidence that the land had been improperly sold, and that the Kohl family had acted in good faith in purchasing the land. The Court also noted that the Kohl family had made improvements to the land and had paid taxes on it for many years, and that the United States had failed to take any action to reclaim the land until many years after the sale. The Court concluded that the Kohl family was the rightful owner of the land, and that the United States had no right to reclaim it. The Court's decision was a victory for the Kohl family, and it established an important precedent for the protection of private property rights.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kohl et al. v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason why it cannot be done so, such as fraud or illegality of one of the parties involved. In this case, he noted that no such issue had been raised by either party; thus, he believed it would have been unjust for the Court to refuse enforcement of an agreement made in good faith by both sides simply because they disagreed on how much money was due under its terms. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that since Congress had not passed any legislation specifically prohibiting contracts like this from being enforced in court - which could have provided clear guidance on what constituted a valid contract - then courts should respect agreements made between private citizens and enforce them accordingly if possible without creating new laws themselves through judicial interpretation or speculation about legislative intent.