The Brady v. Daly case in 1899 revolved around a copyright dispute over the play "After Dark." The plaintiff, William A. Brady, claimed that he had purchased exclusive rights to perform the play from its author Dion Boucicault and his wife Agnes Robertson. However, Augustin Daly continued to stage performances of the same play despite being aware of Brady's exclusive rights. As such, Brady sued for damages and an injunction against further unauthorized performances by Daly. Daly argued that since Boucicault was not a U.S citizen at the time he registered his copyright claim in America (he was British), it should be considered invalid under U.S law which only granted copyrights to citizens or residents of the United States or other countries with reciprocal agreements with America - Britain did not have such an agreement until later. However, this argument failed as Supreme Court ruled that although there were indeed restrictions on who could initially obtain copyrights under American law; once validly obtained (as it was by Boucicault when he became a US resident), those rights could then be transferred freely regardless of nationality including through sale as happened here between him and Brady.

In the dissenting opinion for Brady v. Daly, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of common law. He contended that a contract to perform an act which is not in itself unlawful does not become illegal simply because it may indirectly lead to a violation of law or public policy. In this case, he believed that the agreement between Brady and Daly did not directly involve any illegality; rather, it was merely related to theatrical performances which could potentially violate copyright laws if performed without proper authorization from copyright holders. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's view that such contracts are unenforceable due to their potential connection with illegal activities. Furthermore, Harlan emphasized his belief in upholding contractual obligations unless they clearly contravene statutory provisions or established public policy.