Noonan v. Bradley, Administrator was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The case was brought by a resident of Massachusetts, who was the administrator of the estate of a deceased non-resident. The state of Massachusetts had imposed a tax on the income of the non-resident, which the administrator argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state of Massachusetts had the right to impose a tax on the income of a non-resident, as long as the tax was not discriminatory. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in taxing the income of non-residents, as it was a source of revenue for the state. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it was applied equally to all non-residents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Massachusetts had the right to impose a tax on the income of a non-resident, as long as the tax was not discriminatory. This decision established the precedent that states have the right to tax the income of non-residents, as long as the tax is applied equally to all non-residents.

In the dissenting opinion of Noonan v. Bradley, Administrator, Justice Field argued that the court should not have granted a writ of mandamus to compel an officer to perform his duty as it was outside their jurisdiction. He believed that Congress had exclusive power over such matters and this decision would set a dangerous precedent for future cases in which courts could interfere with executive powers. Furthermore, he argued that even if the court did possess authority to issue such orders they should only do so when there is no other remedy available or when justice requires it; neither of these conditions were present in this case. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating that while he sympathized with Noonan's plight and wished him success in obtaining redress from Congress instead of through judicial means.