Dugger v. Bocock 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, Dugger and Bocock, in which Dugger agreed to pay Bocock a certain amount of money for the sale of a tract of land. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of land 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 the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made without the approval of the state legislature. The Court's decision in Dugger v. Bocock established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of state laws.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dugger v. Bocock, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to a dangerous precedent. He argued that under Virginia law, which applied in this case, a tenant could not be held liable for rent due after he had vacated his property unless there were special circumstances such as fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the tenant. The majority opinion found otherwise by holding that even if no fraud or misrepresentation occurred, a tenant could still be held liable for unpaid rent after vacating their property because they had failed to give proper notice before leaving. Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning and argued that it contradicted established legal principles regarding landlord-tenant relationships in Virginia and should not be allowed to stand as precedent going forward.