Conrad v. Waples 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, Conrad and Waples, in which Conrad agreed to pay Waples a certain amount of money in exchange for Waples’s promise to convey certain real estate to Conrad. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of real estate without the approval of the state legislature. 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 its laws. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of its laws. The Court’s decision in Conrad v. Waples established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to support the principle that state courts must adhere to the laws of the state in which they are located.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Conrad v. Waples, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the facts and law. He argued that under California state law, which governed this case, an executor could not be held liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they had expressly assumed them or were otherwise legally obligated to pay them. In this case, there was no evidence that either condition applied; therefore Justice Field concluded that Waples should not have been held liable for his predecessor's debt as he did not assume it nor was he legally responsible for it. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Waples had assumed responsibility for his predecessor's debt at some point during his tenure as executor - something which is disputed by both parties - then such assumption would only apply to those debts existing at the time of assumption and any subsequent liabilities would still fall upon the estate itself rather than being transferred onto him personally. Therefore Justice Field concluded that since there was no proof of express assumption or legal obligation on behalf of Waples regarding his predecessors' debt then he should not have been found liable in this instance and thus dissented from the majority opinion accordingly.