Dingley & Another v. Oler & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Dingley and Oler, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Dingley had agreed to pay Oler a certain amount of money for the land, but Oler refused to accept the payment and instead sued Dingley for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Dingley, finding that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Oler was not entitled to any additional payment from Dingley. The Court also noted that Oler had failed to provide any evidence that the contract was invalid or that Dingley had acted in bad faith. As a result, the Court held that Dingley was not liable for any breach of contract and that Oler was not entitled to any additional payment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dingley & Another v. Oler & Another, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider all relevant facts of the case. He argued that under California law, a married woman was not allowed to convey her separate property without her husband's consent unless it was done through an instrument executed before marriage or with his written permission after marriage. In this case, he noted that although Mrs. Dingley did execute a deed conveying certain real estate prior to marrying Mr. Oler, she never received any consideration for it and thus could not be considered as having conveyed away her separate property rights at all; rather than being validly transferred by Mrs. Dingley herself, Justice Field argued that these rights were instead held in trust by Mr. Oler on behalf of himself and his wife until they were released upon their divorce several years later when both parties agreed to divide up their assets accordingly - which is why there was no need for him to have obtained his wife's consent beforehand since he already owned them jointly anyway due solely to their marital status at the time of execution of said deed from Mrs