Hartman v. Bean was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Hartman and Bean, in which Hartman agreed to pay Bean a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Bean argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Hartman argued that the contract was valid because it had been orally agreed upon. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Hartman, finding that the contract was valid. The Court held that the contract was binding because it had been agreed upon by both parties, and that the lack of a written agreement did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract had been partially performed. The Court's ruling in Hartman v. Bean established that oral contracts can be valid and binding, even if they are not in writing. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the validity of oral contracts in a variety of contexts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hartman v. Bean, a case involving an action for damages brought by a plaintiff against the defendant for failing to perform his contract of employment. Justice Field argued that while it was true that contracts should be enforced according to their terms, this particular contract did not contain any provisions regarding damages or compensation if either party failed to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. He further noted that since there were no such provisions, and since both parties had acted in good faith throughout their dealings with each other, it would be unjust and inequitable to allow one side (the plaintiff) to recover damages from the other (the defendant). Therefore, he concluded that judgment should have been entered in favor of the defendant on all counts.