Beard v. Porter was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between two individuals, William Beard and William Porter, in which Beard agreed to pay Porter a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of property without a license. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, despite the fact that it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was intended to protect the public from fraud and other forms of misconduct, and that the contract in question did not involve any such misconduct. The Court also noted that the state statute did not provide for any criminal penalties for violating the statute, and that the parties to the contract had acted in good faith. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract between Beard and Porter, despite the fact that it was made in violation of a state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was intended to protect the public from fraud and other forms of misconduct, and that the contract in question did not involve any such misconduct. The Court also noted that the state statute did not provide for any criminal penalties for violating the statute, and that the parties to the contract had acted in good faith.

In Beard v. Porter, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of land could be enforced despite one party's failure to pay taxes on that property. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus denied relief to the plaintiff in this case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it should have been up to a jury, rather than the court itself, to determine if there had been any fraud or misrepresentation involved in entering into such an agreement. He further noted that even if there had been some form of deception or mistake made by either party when entering into the contract, it did not necessarily mean they should be deprived of their rights under it; instead he believed each situation must be judged on its own merits before any final determination is made as to whether or not a contract can still stand after one party has failed to pay taxes on property included within its terms.