Dermott v. Jones was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1864. The dispute involved two parties, Dermott and Jones, who had entered into an agreement to purchase land from each other. When the transaction occurred, both parties agreed that they would pay for their respective portions of the land at different times and with different forms of payment. However, when it came time to make payments on his portion of the land, Dermott failed to do so as promised and instead attempted to rescind his part of the contract without paying anything back to Jones. In response, Jones filed suit against Dermott seeking damages for breach of contract due to non-payment on his part. After hearing arguments from both sides regarding whether or not rescission was allowed under these circumstances given that there were no fraud or misrepresentation present in this particular situation; ultimately ruled in favor of Jones stating that rescission could not be used as a defense since he had already accepted partial performance from Dermott prior to attempting any form of rescission himself thus making him liable for all contractual obligations associated with this transaction including full payment according tot heir original agreement .

In the case of Dermott v. Jones, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining 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 voided by courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no evidence to suggest that Congress intended for state laws to supersede federal common law regarding contract enforcement. He argued further that allowing states to void contracts would lead to chaos and confusion as each state could have its own set of rules governing contractual obligations which would make interstate commerce difficult if not impossible. Ultimately, he concluded that enforcing these types of contracts did not violate any constitutional principles or public policy considerations and thus should remain valid under federal common law despite their illegality under certain state statutes.