Dudley v. Easton 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, Dudley and Easton, in which Dudley agreed to pay Easton a certain amount of money in exchange for Easton's promise to convey certain real estate to Dudley. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of real estate 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 regulate the sale of real estate. The Court also noted that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the public from fraud and other abuses that could arise from the sale of real estate without a license. The Court's decision in Dudley v. Easton 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 become an important precedent in contract law.

In the case of Dudley v. Easton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should not be recognized as valid in court. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that partial performance of a contract is sufficient evidence to prove its validity and should therefore be considered binding upon both parties involved. He argued further that if one party has already provided some benefit or service under the terms of an agreement, then it would be unfair for them to receive nothing in return simply because they did not fully perform their obligations before being sued by another party. As such, he concluded that partial performance should indeed constitute legal consideration for enforcing a contract even when full performance has yet to take place.