Edmondson v. Bloomshire was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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, Edmondson and Bloomshire, in which Edmondson agreed to pay Bloomshire a certain amount of money for the purchase of a piece of land. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of land 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 held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was against public policy. The Court reasoned that the state had an interest in protecting its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law and that the state court should not be allowed to enforce such contracts. The decision in Edmondson v. Bloomshire established the principle that state courts cannot enforce contracts that are made in violation of state statutes. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and has been used to protect citizens from contracts that are made in violation of the law.

In Edmondson v. Bloomshire, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable because they lacked consideration; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that there should be an exception to the rule of consideration in cases where both parties have acted in good faith and one party has already performed their part of the agreement. He reasoned that if a court refused to enforce such agreements then it would encourage dishonesty by allowing people to break promises without consequence. Furthermore, he argued that enforcing these types of contracts would promote justice since it is unfair for someone who has done what they promised not to receive anything in return simply because no money or other form of compensation was exchanged at the time the agreement was made.