Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1884. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Heidritter, and the defendant, Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Company, over a contract for the sale of oilcloth. Heidritter had contracted to purchase oilcloth from the company, but the company refused to deliver the goods. Heidritter then sued the company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Heidritter and the company was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the company had breached its obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Heidritter was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court's decision in Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Company established the principle that a contract is binding and enforceable if it is supported by consideration. This case also established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case is still cited today as an important precedent in contract law.

In Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patentee of an invention could recover damages for infringement from a party who had purchased and used the patented article from another infringer. The majority opinion held that he could not, but Justice Field dissented on this point. In his dissent, Justice Field argued that it would be unjust to deny recovery in such cases because purchasers should know better than to buy articles which are known or suspected of being infringing upon patents owned by others; thus they should be liable for any damage caused by their purchase and use of those articles. Furthermore, he reasoned that if purchasers were allowed to escape liability simply because they bought from another infringer rather than directly from the patentee himself then there would be no incentive for them not to do so since it would provide them with immunity against suit regardless of how much knowledge they had about the infringement at hand. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that allowing patentees like Heidritter in this case to recover damages when their inventions have been wrongfully used is necessary in order for justice and equity between parties involved in these disputes to prevail.