Palmer v. Marston was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a contract between two parties. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Palmer and Marston, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Palmer had agreed to sell the land to Marston for a certain sum of money, but Marston had failed to pay the full amount. Palmer then sued Marston for the balance of the purchase price. The Supreme Court held that Palmer was entitled to the balance of the purchase price, as Marston had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations. The Court also held that Palmer was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, as Marston had failed to pay the full amount of the purchase price. The Court further held that Palmer was entitled to interest on the unpaid balance, as Marston had failed to pay the full amount of the purchase price in a timely manner. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Palmer was entitled to the balance of the purchase price, as well as damages and interest for the breach of contract. The Court also held that Marston was liable for the unpaid balance, as well as damages and interest for the breach of contract.

In the case of Palmer v. Marston, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should be considered void ab initio - meaning they never existed legally in the first place. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although contracts made in violation of state laws are generally unenforceable, there may still exist circumstances where enforcement would be appropriate if it is determined to have been reasonable for both parties at the time and does not conflict with public policy or morals. He argued further that since no evidence was presented as to why either party believed their agreement violated any applicable law, there was no basis for concluding that enforcement would violate public policy or morals; thus making it unjustified to declare such agreements void ab initio without considering all relevant facts surrounding its formation.