Gunton v. Carroll 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, Gunton and Carroll, in which Gunton agreed to pay Carroll a certain amount of money in exchange for a deed to 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 fraud and other forms of deception. The Court also noted that the contract was voidable, meaning that either party could have chosen to void the contract at any time. The Court's decision in Gunton v. Carroll established that state courts cannot enforce contracts that are made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gunton v. Carroll, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and not overturned by courts. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established legal principles of contracts and would lead to confusion among litigants as they could no longer rely on their agreements being respected by the court system. In this case, he believed that there had been an agreement between Gunton and Carroll which specified how much money was due for certain services rendered; however, because of a technicality regarding when payment was made, the majority decided not to enforce it despite both parties having agreed upon it at one point in time. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a warning about what such decisions could mean for future cases involving contractual disputes: if courts are allowed to ignore or modify contracts based on technicalities rather than enforcing them according to their terms then "the law will become uncertain."