v. THE UNITED STATES The Steamer Eclipse, Braithwaite, Claimant v. The United States was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the claimant, Braithwaite, and the United States over the ownership of a steamer called the Eclipse. Braithwaite claimed that he had purchased the steamer from the United States in 1871, but the United States argued that the sale was invalid because it had not been approved by Congress. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the United States, ruling that the sale was invalid because it had not been approved by Congress. The Court held that the United States had the right to sell its property, but that it must be done in accordance with the laws of the United States. The Court also held that the United States had the right to reclaim its property if it was not sold in accordance with the laws of the United States. The decision in this case established an important precedent for the sale of government property. It established that the United States had the right to sell its property, but that it must be done in accordance with the laws of the United States. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it is still an important part of the law today.

v. THE UNITED STATES In the Supreme Court case of The Steamer Eclipse, Braithwaite, Claimant v. The United States, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the claimant was entitled to compensation for damages caused by an act of Congress. He noted that while it is true that no one can be held liable for acts done under authority of law or in pursuance thereof, this does not mean that those affected should not receive some form of recompense from the government when their property has been taken without just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence to show that Congress had acted beyond its constitutional powers and thus should have provided adequate compensation to Braithwaite for his losses due to their actions. He further argued against using public necessity as a defense since such an argument would essentially render all private rights null and void if accepted by the court; instead he suggested looking at other means through which claimants could be compensated without sacrificing any individual's right to just remuneration when their property is taken away from them unjustly or unlawfully.