Norris v. Haggin was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two California landowners, Norris and Haggin, over the ownership of a piece of land. Norris claimed that he had purchased the land from the United States government in 1876, while Haggin claimed that he had purchased the land from the same government in 1877. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Norris, ruling that the United States government had only sold the land to Norris in 1876 and that Haggin's purchase was invalid. The Court held that the United States government had no authority to sell the same land twice, and that Norris was the rightful owner of the land. The Court also held that Haggin was not entitled to any compensation for his purchase, as he had not acquired a valid title to the land. The decision in Norris v. Haggin established an important precedent in land law, as it established that the United States government could not sell the same land twice. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes over land ownership.

In the Supreme Court case of Norris v. Haggin, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be reversed. He believed that the California court had correctly decided on this issue and that it should not have been overturned by the Supreme Court. According to him, there were two separate contracts between Norris and Haggin: one for an option to purchase land at $50 per acre, and another for a lease of certain portions of said land at $2 per acre annually with an option to buy after five years at $60 per acre. The majority held that these two agreements constituted only one contract; however, Justice Field disagreed because they contained different terms regarding payment amounts as well as time frames for performance under each agreement. Furthermore, he argued that if both parties intended them to constitute one contract then they would have included language indicating such intent in their written documents or oral statements during negotiations prior to signing any agreement(s). Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating “I am unable to concur in reversing this judgment [of the California court], upon grounds so unsubstantial."