Tennessee v. Sneed is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between the state of Tennessee and a man named Sneed over the ownership of a tract of land. The state of Tennessee had granted the land to Sneed in 1845, but Sneed had failed to pay the taxes on the land for several years. As a result, the state of Tennessee had seized the land and sold it to another party. Sneed then sued the state of Tennessee, claiming that he was the rightful owner of the land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sneed, finding that the state of Tennessee had acted unlawfully in seizing the land and selling it to another party. The Court held that the state of Tennessee had violated Sneed's constitutional rights by taking his property without due process of law. The Court also held that the state of Tennessee had failed to provide Sneed with adequate notice of the tax delinquency and the sale of the land. As a result, the Court ruled that Sneed was the rightful owner of the land and ordered the state of Tennessee to return the land to him.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Tennessee v. Sneed, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a key provision of the state constitution and thereby denied due process to defendant Sneed. He argued that under Article XI of Tennessee's Constitution, which provided for trial by jury in all criminal cases, it was unconstitutional for any court to try a case without first empaneling a jury. The majority had interpreted this article as allowing courts to proceed with trials even if no jurors were present at the time; however Justice Field maintained that such an interpretation violated both Article XI and fundamental principles of justice because it allowed defendants like Sneed to be tried without being able to challenge or cross-examine witnesses before their peers on a jury panel. In conclusion, he asserted that since there was no valid waiver from either party involved in this case regarding trial by jury, defendant Sneed should have been granted his right under Article XI and thus not found guilty on appeal.