Edward Curtis brought a case against William Martin and Charles A. Coe in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between Curtis and Martin to purchase land from Coe, with Curtis providing money for the purchase price and receiving half of any profits made on resale or lease of said land. After purchasing the property, it was discovered that there were no legal title documents available for transfer to either party due to a prior lien held by another individual; however, both parties agreed that they would still honor their original contract despite this issue. Unfortunately, when it came time to divide up any potential profits from leasing out part of the property as had been previously agreed upon, Martin refused to pay his portion citing lack of legal title documents as his reasoning behind not honoring their agreement. As such, Curtis took him before court seeking damages for breach of contract which resulted in a ruling in favor of Edward Curtin who received $1125 plus interest from defendants William Martin and Charles A Coe as compensation for losses incurred due to breach thereof

In the case of Edward Curtis v. William Martin and Charles A. Coe, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy as expressed by the legislature through its laws. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that since there was no evidence that either party knew about or intended to violate any law when entering into their agreement, enforcing it would not be contrary to public policy but rather consistent with principles of justice and equity which should govern all contractual relationships regardless of legislative enactments. Furthermore, he noted that while states have the power to regulate certain aspects of commerce within their borders for legitimate reasons, they cannot use those powers arbitrarily or unjustly interfere with private agreements already entered into without good cause or just compensation for damages incurred as a result thereof