Parsons v. Robinson 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 two parties, Parsons and Robinson, in which Parsons agreed to pay Robinson a certain amount of money in exchange for Robinson's promise to convey certain real estate to Parsons. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of real estate 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 regulate the sale of real estate. The Court also noted that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the public from fraud and other abuses that could arise from the sale of real estate without a license. The Court concluded that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute.

In Parsons v. Robinson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract for the sale of real estate could be enforced against an infant who had not been represented by a guardian in court proceedings. The majority opinion held that such contracts were voidable and thus unenforceable against infants, while Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that allowing infants to repudiate their contractual obligations would lead to great injustice and confusion in business transactions involving minors, as it would create uncertainty about when they can or cannot repudiate their agreements. Furthermore, he noted that if courts allowed minors to avoid all contracts made without guardianship representation then any minor with sufficient understanding could enter into binding agreements without fear of being bound by them later on. Thus, Justice Field concluded that allowing infants to repudiate contracts entered into without guardianship representation would do more harm than good and should not be permitted under law.