Lynch v. Bailey 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 Lynch and Bailey, in which Lynch agreed to pay Bailey 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 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 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 proper consideration. The Court's decision in Lynch v. Bailey 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 it has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lynch v. Bailey, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He argued that a contract for services should be treated as any other contract and enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is verbal or written. Furthermore, he noted that if an oral agreement could not be enforced due to lack of evidence then no one would ever enter into such agreements since they are inherently difficult to prove in court. He also pointed out that there were sufficient facts presented at trial which showed a valid agreement between the parties and thus should have been upheld by the Court instead of being overturned on appeal. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that contracts should be respected and upheld unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise; therefore he disagreed with his colleagues' ruling in this case.