BORS v. PRESTON is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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, Bors and Preston, in which Bors agreed to pay Preston 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 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 without proper consideration. The Court's decision in BORS v. PRESTON established that a state court could not enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that a state court cannot enforce a contract that is made in violation of the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in BORS v. PRESTON, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and should be overturned. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them unless it has been modified or rescinded by mutual agreement or some other legal means. In this case, he noted, there had been no such modification or rescission; therefore, the contract remained valid and enforceable against Preston despite his failure to pay for goods received from Bors. Furthermore, Field argued that even if Preston had not agreed to purchase any goods from Bors at all (as alleged by him), then under existing law he would still have been liable for their value as an implied-in-fact contract existed between them due to his acceptance of those goods without objection when they were tendered by Bors' agent. As such, Justice Field concluded that the lower court's judgment should be affirmed and Preston held responsible for payment according to terms of their original agreement