Van Norden v. Morton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Van Norden and Morton, in which Van Norden agreed to pay Morton a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Morton argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that the parties had entered into a binding agreement. The Court noted that the contract was valid because it had been signed by both parties, and that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith, and that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Van Norden was obligated to pay Morton the amount specified in the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Van Norden v. Morton, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties cannot be enforced if it is illegal or contrary to public policy, which he believed this particular contract was due to its nature as an agreement for usury. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even though the state of California had not yet enacted a law prohibiting such contracts at the time of their formation, they were still against public policy and thus unenforceable under common law principles established by prior cases. As such, he concluded that there could be no recovery on either side since both parties would have been aware of this illegality when entering into said agreement.