Beedle v. Bennett was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between two parties, Beedle and Bennett, in which Beedle agreed to pay Bennett a certain amount of money in exchange for Bennett's promise to convey certain real estate to Beedle. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of real estate for a certain amount of money. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in bad faith or with the intent to defraud. The Court's decision in Beedle v. Bennett established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Beedle v. Bennett, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass legislation granting pensions for service in state militias, as this was an issue reserved exclusively for states by virtue of their sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that if such a law were allowed to stand it could be used as justification for further expansions of congressional powers into areas traditionally reserved solely for states' control. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing Congress to grant pensions based on militia service would set a dangerous precedent and should not be upheld by the court.