Perris v. Higley was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Perris and Higley, in which Perris agreed to pay Higley a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Higley had previously sold the land to another party, and Perris argued that the contract was invalid because Higley did not have the right to sell the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that Higley had the right to sell the land. The Court reasoned that Higley had the right to sell the land because he had previously obtained a deed to the land from the original owner. The Court also held that Perris had the right to rely on the contract, and that Higley was not obligated to inform Perris of the prior sale. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Perris and Higley was valid, and that Higley had the right to sell the land. The Court also held that Perris had the right to rely on the contract, and that Higley was not obligated to inform Perris of the prior sale.

In Perris v. Higley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide 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 thus the plaintiff's claim failed. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority that contracts made in violation of state laws should generally not be enforced, there were exceptions to this rule where enforcement would serve justice and equity. He argued that since both parties had acted in good faith and relied upon their agreement as binding, denying them relief would lead to injustice for one or both sides involved. Furthermore, he noted that if courts refused to recognize agreements which violated state laws but which did not harm public policy then individuals might become discouraged from entering into any contractual arrangements at all out of fear they may later be found unenforceable by a court due to some technicality or other legal issue beyond their control.