Noonan v. Bradley was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1869. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of California. The plaintiff, Noonan, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Bradley, in 1867. Bradley, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Noonan and that he was still the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Noonan, ruling that he had indeed purchased the land from Bradley in 1867. The Court held that Bradley had made a valid contract with Noonan and that the contract was binding. The Court also held that Bradley had failed to prove that he had not sold the land to Noonan, and thus Noonan was the rightful owner. The decision in Noonan v. Bradley established the principle that a contract is binding and that a party cannot simply deny that they have made a contract. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of contract law in the United States.

In the case of Noonan v. Bradley, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an act of Congress which allowed for a patent on an invention already in use by another party. Field argued that allowing such patents would be detrimental to society as it could stifle innovation and creativity, while also creating monopolies over certain inventions or products. He further noted that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to grant such exclusive rights and privileges without due process of law, nor did they have any power to create monopolies or restrain trade between states. In conclusion, he believed this was not only unconstitutional but bad policy as well since it would lead to higher prices for consumers and less competition among inventors who were trying their best at innovating new ideas and products.