Kain v. Gibboney 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, Kain and Gibboney, in which Kain agreed to pay Gibboney a certain amount of money for the sale of a 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 fraud and other forms of unfair dealing. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of its laws. The Court's decision in Kain v. Gibboney 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 laws.

In Kain v. Gibboney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and reversed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that it would be unjust for states to lack authority over cases involving their own citizens; second, he asserted that Congress had granted states broad powers with respect to civil proceedings and thus should have been given deference in this case. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that there were sufficient facts present for a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the state court and therefore disagreed with his colleagues' ruling reversing its judgment.