In the Intermingled Cotton Cases, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the United States could recover cotton that had been intermingled with other cotton. The cotton in question had been seized by the United States during the Civil War and was being held by a third party, Raymond, who had been appointed as an assignee. The United States argued that the cotton was rightfully theirs and that Raymond had no right to possess it. The Supreme Court held that the United States was entitled to the cotton, but only to the extent that it could be identified as the cotton that had been seized. The Court reasoned that the cotton had been intermingled with other cotton, and thus it was impossible to determine which cotton belonged to the United States. The Court held that the United States was entitled to the cotton to the extent that it could be identified, but not to the entire amount. The Court also held that Raymond was not liable for any damages caused by the intermingling of the cotton, as he had acted in good faith and had not intended to cause any harm. The Court concluded that the United States was entitled to the cotton to the extent that it could be identified, but not to the entire amount.

In the Intermingled Cotton Cases, United States v. Raymond, Assignee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not certain cotton bales that had been seized by federal agents were subject to forfeiture under a statute which prohibited importation of goods from foreign countries without payment of duties. The majority opinion held that because some of the cotton in question had been imported from abroad and mixed with domestic cotton before it reached its final destination in New York City, all of it should be forfeited as contraband merchandise. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that since there was no evidence to suggest any fraudulent intent on behalf of those involved in transporting the intermingled bales nor any proof that they knew about their contents prior to seizure by federal agents, only those portions containing foreign-imported material should be forfeited while allowing for release of domestically produced material back into circulation. He further noted how such an interpretation would better serve public policy interests than one where all intermingled materials are treated equally regardless if part or none originated outside U.S borders