Hilton v. Dickinson 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 the plaintiff, Hilton, and the defendant, Dickinson, in which Hilton agreed to pay Dickinson 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 Hilton v. Dickinson 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 law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hilton v. Dickinson, arguing that the majority’s decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a detrimental effect on creditors. He argued that under existing law, when a debtor assigns their property to another person for security of debt, they are not allowed to revoke or modify it without permission from the creditor. The majority had ruled otherwise in this case by allowing an assignment made by Hilton as security for his debt with Dickinson to be revoked at any time without consent from either party. Justice Field believed this ruling undermined prior decisions which held that such assignments were irrevocable unless both parties agreed upon modification or revocation; he argued that if creditors could no longer rely on these assignments as secure sources of repayment then they would be less likely to lend money and commerce would suffer as a result. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while there may have been some inequity between the two parties in this particular case due to changes in circumstances since the original agreement was made, it should not override well-established legal principles which protect creditors from defaulting debtors who attempt to avoid payment through revoking their assignments after-the-fact.