Medsker and Wife v. Bonebrake, Assignee 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 federal statute. The case involved a contract between the Medskers and a third party, in which the Medskers agreed to pay the third party a certain amount of money in exchange for a deed of trust. The contract was made in violation of a federal statute that prohibited the sale of land on credit. The Medskers argued that the contract was void and unenforceable, while the third party argued that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enforce the contract, as it was in violation of a federal statute. The Court reasoned that the federal statute was intended to protect the public from fraudulent contracts, and that the state court could not override the federal statute by enforcing the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was void and unenforceable, and that the Medskers were not obligated to pay the third party.

In Medsker and Wife v. Bonebrake, Assignee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court judgment could be enforced against a debtor's property that had been transferred to his wife before the debt was incurred. The majority opinion held that such transfers were not valid under state law and thus could not be enforced by creditors. However, in dissent Justice Field argued that this decision would have an unfair effect on married women who relied upon their husbands for financial support since they would no longer have any protection from creditors if their husband’s debts were attached to her property as well as his own. He further argued that it should be up to states rather than federal courts to determine how marital assets are distributed between spouses and what protections exist for them when one spouse incurs debt or is sued by creditors. Ultimately he concluded that allowing these transfers of property between spouses should remain valid under state law so long as they do not violate public policy or other laws governing marriage contracts