Joseph S. Cucullu was the plaintiff in error in this Supreme Court case against Louis Emmerling. The dispute arose from a contract between the two parties, wherein Cucullu agreed to pay Emmerling $1,000 for certain real estate located in New Orleans. After paying part of the sum due, Cucullu refused to make any further payments on account of alleged defects and irregularities in title papers presented by Emmerling at the time of sale. In response, Emmerling sued for breach of contract and obtained judgment against Cucullu for full payment plus interest and costs incurred during litigation proceedings. On appeal before the Supreme Court, it was argued that there were indeed defects present with regards to title documents which should have been disclosed prior to purchase; however these issues had not been raised as defenses until after judgment had already been rendered against him. Ultimately, it was determined that while such matters may be considered valid grounds upon which relief could be granted if brought up timely enough during trial proceedings or even beforehand through negotiation with seller; since they were only raised afterwards they could not serve as sufficient defense under existing law at that time period so judgement remained unchanged and affirmed by court ruling .

In Joseph S. Cucullu v Louis Emmerling, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of a state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's case. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Nelson argued that while states have an interest in protecting their citizens from fraud and other illegal activities, they should not be allowed to interfere with private contracts which are otherwise valid under common law principles. He further noted that allowing states to invalidate contracts would lead to uncertainty and confusion as well as discourage individuals from entering into agreements for fear of having them declared void by courts or legislatures at any time after execution. Ultimately, he concluded that since there was no evidence presented showing any fraudulent intent on either party’s part nor any public policy considerations which would make enforcement of this particular contract unjustified or improper, it should stand despite its technical illegality under state law.