Durand v. Martin 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, Durand and Martin, in which Durand agreed to pay Martin a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of property 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 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 proper consideration. The Court's decision in Durand v. Martin 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 the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Durand v. Martin, a case concerning whether or not an individual was entitled to compensation for services rendered as a special agent of the United States government. Justice Field argued that there was no evidence presented by either party that would suggest any kind of agreement between them regarding payment for services rendered. He further noted that even if such an agreement had been made, it could not be enforced due to lack of consideration and mutuality of obligation on both sides. Furthermore, he stated that Congress had never authorized payments to individuals acting as special agents without specific authorization from Congress itself; thus, making any claims for compensation invalid under existing law at the time. In conclusion, Justice Field disagreed with the majority opinion and held that Durand should not receive any form of compensation from Martin or anyone else associated with his service as a special agent since no contract existed between them and because such contracts were prohibited by federal law at the time.