The Fairbanks case was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Maine. The plaintiff, Fairbanks, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, who had previously purchased it from the state of Maine. The defendant argued that the state had no right to sell the land, as it was part of a larger tract of land that had been granted to the state by the federal government. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Fairbanks, ruling that the state of Maine had the right to sell the land, as it was not part of the larger tract of land granted by the federal government. The Court reasoned that the state had the right to sell the land, as it was not part of the larger tract of land granted by the federal government. The Court also held that the defendant had no right to challenge the sale, as he had purchased the land from the state. The Fairbanks case was an important decision in the development of property law in the United States. It established the principle that states have the right to sell land that is not part of a larger tract of land granted by the federal government. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it continues to be an important precedent in property law.

In the case of The Fairbanks, a majority opinion was reached that held that an individual who had purchased land from the United States government could not be sued for trespass by another party. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that if someone purchases land from the federal government they should have to abide by any existing rights or claims on it. He reasoned that when Congress grants public lands to individuals they do so with knowledge of all prior claims and thus those purchasing such lands must accept them as part of their purchase agreement. Furthermore, he argued that since there were no laws preventing people from suing over trespasses occurring before a sale took place then this should be allowed in court. In conclusion, Justice Field believed purchasers of public lands should assume responsibility for any pre-existing rights or claims on said property and therefore allow suits against them for trespass even after purchase is complete.