White v. Barber is a United States Supreme Court case from 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Tennessee. The plaintiff, White, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Barber, in 1876. Barber, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with White, ruling that the sale was valid and that White was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that the sale was valid because White had paid the full amount of money that was agreed upon in the contract. Furthermore, the Court noted that Barber had accepted the payment and had not made any objections to the sale at the time. The Court also held that White had a right to the land under the doctrine of adverse possession. This doctrine states that if a person has been in possession of a piece of land for a certain period of time, they can acquire title to the land. In this case, White had been in possession of the land for more than 10 years, which was sufficient to establish his ownership rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of White, finding that he was the rightful owner of the land in question. The Court held that the sale was valid and that White had acquired title to the land through adverse possession.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in White v. Barber, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that a state court had no authority over a federal officer who was acting within his jurisdiction under federal law, and therefore could not be held liable for damages resulting from such actions. Furthermore, he noted that if states were allowed to impose liability on federal officers for their official acts, it would create an untenable situation where each state could interfere with the operations of other states or even of Congress itself. Justice Field concluded by noting that this case should have been dismissed as soon as it became apparent there was no cause of action against the defendant since he acted within his lawful authority under federal law.