In United States v. Abatoir Place, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a slaughterhouse in New Orleans, Louisiana. The slaughterhouse had been built on land that had been granted to the United States by the State of Louisiana in 1803. The United States argued that it had the right to take possession of the slaughterhouse because it had been built on land that had been granted to the United States by the State of Louisiana. The Supreme Court held that the United States did have the right to take possession of the slaughterhouse. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to take possession of the land because it had been granted to the United States by the State of Louisiana. The Court also held that the United States had the right to take possession of the slaughterhouse because it had been built on land that had been granted to the United States by the State of Louisiana. The Court concluded that the United States had the right to take possession of the slaughterhouse and that the United States was entitled to damages for the value of the slaughterhouse. The Court also held that the United States was entitled to damages for the value of the land on which the slaughterhouse was built. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the United States the damages for the value of the slaughterhouse and the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Abatoir Place, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of a federal statute and would lead to unjust results. He argued that Congress had intended for all slaughterhouses located within two miles of any navigable waterway to be subject to federal regulation, regardless of whether or not they were actually used as such. The majority opinion held that only those slaughterhouses which were actively being used as such should be regulated by the government; however, Justice Field argued this was contrary to Congressional intent and could potentially lead to abuse from private individuals who may take advantage of lax regulations on inactive slaughterhouses near waterways. Furthermore, he noted that it is impossible for Congress or anyone else outside a particular locality know if an inactive abattoir is likely become active again in future years due to changing conditions in its vicinity - thus making it necessary for all abattoirs near navigable waters be subject equally stringent regulations regardless their current status at any given time.