Gumbel v. Pitkin 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, Gumbel and Pitkin, in which Gumbel agreed to pay Pitkin a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of property for more than its appraised value. 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 in bad faith or with the intent to defraud. The Court's decision in Gumbel v. Pitkin 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.

In Gumbel v. Pitkin, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court's decision in a case involving land titles. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and could not hear such appeals, while Justice Field dissented on this point. He argued that since there were no laws or regulations preventing it, the state courts should be allowed to exercise their authority over cases arising out of federal law when they are within their own territorial limits. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to adjudicate these matters would help ensure uniformity across all jurisdictions and prevent any potential conflicts between different interpretations of federal law by different courts. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that denying states' rights in this matter was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy principles.