In Murray v. Lardner, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties could not be enforced if it was found to be against public policy. The case involved an agreement between William Murray and John Lardner in which Murray agreed to pay Lardner $500 for his assistance in obtaining a pardon from President Lincoln for one of Murray's clients who had been convicted of treason during the Civil War. The court determined that this type of agreement was contrary to public policy because it would encourage people to seek pardons through bribery or other improper means rather than through legitimate legal channels. As such, they ruled that the contract could not be enforced and denied both parties their requested reliefs.

In Murray v. Lardner, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant and held that a contract between two parties could not be enforced if it was found to have been made with an illegal purpose. The dissenting opinion argued that while contracts for illegal purposes should not be enforced, this case did not involve such a situation because there was no evidence presented to show that either party had any knowledge or intent to commit an illegal act when they entered into the agreement. Furthermore, even though one of the parties may have subsequently committed an unlawful act after entering into the contract, this should still not invalidate their prior agreement as long as neither party had any intention or knowledge of committing such acts at its formation. Thus, according to Justice Field's dissent in this case, both parties were entitled to enforce their contractual obligations despite one party's subsequent violation of law since there was no proof showing otherwise at its inception.