Drexel v. Berney 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 federal statute. The case involved a contract between Drexel, a New York corporation, and Berney, a resident of Pennsylvania. The contract was for the sale of a large quantity of goods, and it was made in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was in violation of the federal statute. The Court reasoned that the Sherman Antitrust Act was a federal law, and that it was the duty of the federal courts to enforce it. The Court also noted that the state court could not enforce a contract that was in violation of a federal statute, even if the parties had agreed to it. The Court's decision in Drexel v. Berney established the principle that state courts cannot enforce contracts that are in violation of federal statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to support the idea that federal law should be given precedence over state law in certain circumstances.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Drexel v. Berney, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not subject to judicial interpretation. He argued that if the court were to interpret contracts for every party involved, it would lead to an increase in litigation and confusion over what was agreed upon by both parties. Furthermore, he asserted that when a contract is clear on its face there is no need for further examination of extrinsic evidence or parol evidence which could potentially alter the meaning of the agreement. In this case specifically, Justice Field believed that since Drexel had already paid $2,000 under their agreement with Berney they should have been able to recover it from him without having any additional obligations imposed on them by virtue of a court's interpretation of their contract. Ultimately he concluded his dissent by stating "the courts are bound faithfully to enforce contracts according to their terms."