In the case of Burr v. Duryee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even if it violated state usury laws. The plaintiff had loaned money to the defendant at an interest rate higher than allowed by New York law and sued for repayment when he failed to receive payment on time. The court held that while contracts in violation of state usury laws were voidable, they were not necessarily unenforceable as long as there was no fraud or mistake involved in their formation. Furthermore, since this particular contract did not involve any such elements, it should be enforced according to its terms despite being contrary to public policy established by statute. This decision set an important precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding enforceability of contracts which violate existing statutes or regulations

In the case of Burr v. Duryee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should be declared void by courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that while a court may refuse to enforce a contract if it is illegal or against public policy, there must first be proof that the agreement violated some specific statute or rule before declaring it invalid. He further noted that even if one party has acted illegally in making an agreement with another party, this does not necessarily mean both parties are equally culpable for any wrongdoing; rather, only one side can truly bear responsibility for violating the law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that unless there was clear evidence of illegality on behalf of both parties involved in entering into an agreement then they should still have their rights respected under common law principles and their contract enforced accordingly