In Noyes v. Mantle, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was enforceable even if it had not been signed by both parties. The case arose when plaintiff William H. Noyes sued defendant John W. Mantle for breach of an oral agreement to purchase land from him in exchange for $1,000 and other considerations such as timber rights and mineral rights on the property. The court found that although there was no written contract or signature from either party, there were sufficient facts to prove that a valid agreement existed between them based on their actions and words exchanged during negotiations leading up to the sale of the land. Furthermore, since both parties had acted upon this agreement with full knowledge of its terms and conditions they could be bound by it despite its lack of formality or signatures confirming their consent to it; thus affirming that contracts can still be legally binding without being formally documented in writing or signed by all involved parties

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Noyes v. Mantle, a case concerning whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by another person's negligence. Justice Field argued that the majority had erred in their decision to absolve the defendant of any responsibility for damages caused by his employee's negligence. He reasoned that since it was established law that employers were responsible for their employees' actions while they were on duty, and since there was no evidence presented to suggest otherwise, then the defendant should have been held accountable for his employee's negligent act which resulted in injury to another party. Furthermore, he stated that even if there had been some sort of agreement between employer and employee regarding liability issues such as this one, it would still be invalid because agreements like these are against public policy and therefore unenforceable under law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that due to existing legal precedent at the time of this case being decided upon as well as considerations of public policy; The defendant should have been found liable for damages resulting from his employee’s negligence rather than being absolved from all responsibility as determined by the majority opinion