The Elgee Cotton Cases were a series of cases heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1889. The cases involved a dispute between two cotton merchants, Elgee and Company and the Bank of the United States. Elgee and Company had purchased a large quantity of cotton from the Bank of the United States, but the Bank refused to deliver the cotton until Elgee and Company paid the full purchase price. Elgee and Company argued that they had already paid the full purchase price and that the Bank was in breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Elgee and Company had not paid the full purchase price and that the Bank was not in breach of contract. The Court found that Elgee and Company had only paid a portion of the purchase price and that the Bank was entitled to the remainder. The Court also held that Elgee and Company had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that they had paid the full purchase price. The Elgee Cotton Cases established the principle that a party must provide sufficient evidence to prove that they have fulfilled their contractual obligations. The Court also held that a party cannot rely on the other party's silence or inaction to prove that they have fulfilled their obligations. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of providing sufficient evidence to prove that a contract has been fulfilled.

In the Elgee Cotton Cases, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on cotton manufactured in certain states was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not unconstitutional because it did not interfere with state sovereignty or violate any other provision of the Constitution. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had no authority to impose such a tax as it violated both Article I and Section 8 of the Constitution which grant exclusive power over taxation to Congress. He further argued that if allowed, this would set an alarming precedent where states could be taxed without their consent for matters outside their control. In conclusion, he believed that allowing such taxes would lead to an erosion of state sovereignty and thus should be struck down as unconstitutional.