In Manufacturing Company v. Corbin, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between a manufacturing company and a customer was valid. The manufacturing company had sold a machine to the customer, and the customer had agreed to pay for it in installments. The customer had failed to make the payments, and the manufacturing company sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the customer had received the machine and had accepted it, and that the customer had agreed to pay for it in installments. The Court also noted that the customer had failed to make the payments, and that the manufacturing company had not waived its right to enforce the contract. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the manufacturing company was entitled to recover the unpaid installments from the customer. The Court also held that the customer was liable for any damages caused by its breach of the contract.

In Manufacturing Company v. Corbin, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite its violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was void under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although the contract did violate state law, it should still be enforceable as long as both parties had agreed to its terms in good faith and without fraud or duress. He argued that if contracts were only enforceable when they conformed to all applicable laws then no one would ever enter into any agreements since there are so many statutes governing business transactions in each jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that courts have historically been willing to uphold contracts even when they conflict with certain laws unless those laws explicitly prohibit such agreements from being made in the first place.