Norton v. Jamison was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Norton, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Jamison, to purchase a tract of land in the state of Texas. Jamison had agreed to sell the land to Norton for a certain sum of money, but then refused to complete the sale. Norton then brought suit against Jamison, claiming that the contract was valid and that Jamison had breached it. The Supreme Court agreed with Norton, ruling that the contract was valid and that Jamison had breached it. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Jamison was liable for damages. The Court's decision in Norton v. Jamison established the principle that contracts are binding and that parties who breach them are liable for damages. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the validity of contracts and the liability of parties who breach them.

In the case of Norton v. Jamison, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider all relevant facts. He noted that under California law, an executor was not required to pay debts out of his own pocket if there were insufficient funds from estate assets; instead, creditors could bring suit against other parties who may have been liable for those debts. In this particular case, it appeared that Jamison's father-in-law had agreed to be responsible for any debt incurred by his daughter during her marriage with Jamison; thus, Field argued that since Norton was suing on behalf of himself as well as other creditors who held similar claims against Jamison's father-in-law (who had died before being able to fulfill his obligations), they should have been allowed their day in court so they could prove their claim and seek payment from him or his estate. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that because no such opportunity was given them due to the majority’s ruling in favor of dismissing their complaint without prejudice—which meant they would not be able to refile—the decision should be reversed and remanded back down for further proceedings consistent with California state law.