Coit v. Robinson 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 Coit and Robinson, in which Coit agreed to pay Robinson 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 Coit v. Robinson 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 it has been used to support the idea that a state court should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of the law.

In Coit v. Robinson, 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 the contract should not be enforced as it violated public policy and would encourage people to break laws with impunity. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that contracts should generally be upheld unless they are specifically prohibited by statute or involve some moral turpitude on behalf of one party. He further stated that if a court were to refuse enforcement of such contracts then there would no longer exist any incentive for individuals to enter into agreements at all since their promises could never truly be relied upon due to potential legal consequences down the line. As such, he concluded that enforcing these types of contracts is essential for upholding private rights and preserving justice in society more broadly speaking.