This United States Supreme Court case involved a dispute over the ownership of eighty-seven bales of cotton marked J.H.B. Davenport & Burns. The cotton had been seized by the United States government from a vessel in the port of Mobile, Alabama. The government claimed that the cotton was contraband of war, and thus subject to forfeiture. The claimants, however, argued that the cotton was not contraband, and that they were the rightful owners. The Supreme Court held that the cotton was not contraband of war, and that the claimants were the rightful owners. The Court reasoned that the cotton was not subject to forfeiture because it was not being used for any military purpose, and that the claimants had not violated any laws or regulations. The Court also noted that the government had failed to prove that the cotton was contraband of war. The Court thus held that the claimants were the rightful owners of the eighty-seven bales of cotton, and that the government had no right to seize it. The Court ordered the government to return the cotton to the claimants.

In United States v. Eighty-Seven Bales of Cotton Marked J.H.B Davenport & Burns, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for seizure and forfeiture of goods imported in violation of customs laws applied to cotton seized from two individuals who had attempted to smuggle it into the country without paying duties or taxes on it. The majority opinion held that the statute did apply and affirmed the lower court's decision ordering forfeiture of the cotton bales; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling arguing that Congress had not intended for such seizures when they passed this particular law because there were other statutes already in place which provided remedies against smuggling activities like those engaged by these two individuals. He argued further that allowing such seizures would be an unconstitutional exercise of power as it would amount to punishing people before they have been convicted or even charged with any crime related to their actions - something he felt was beyond what Congress could do under its authority granted by Article I Section 8 Clause 4 (the "Importation Clause")of Constitution .