Phelps v. Harris 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, Phelps and Harris, in which Phelps agreed to pay Harris a certain amount of money in exchange for Harris’s services. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited such contracts. Harris sued Phelps in a state court to enforce the contract, and Phelps argued that the contract was void and unenforceable because it violated the state statute. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, despite the fact that it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was intended to protect the public from fraud and other forms of misconduct, and that the contract in question did not involve any such misconduct. Therefore, the Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract. This decision established the principle that a state court can enforce a contract that is made in violation of a state statute, as long as the contract does not involve any fraud or other misconduct.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Phelps v. Harris, a case concerning whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their negligence while acting as a government agent. Justice Field argued that although it was true that the defendant had acted negligently, he should not be held liable because his actions were done on behalf of the United States and thus did not constitute personal liability. He further argued that if individuals were to be held personally responsible for acts committed while serving as agents of the government, then it would discourage people from taking up such positions due to fear of potential lawsuits and financial losses associated with them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since this particular act was done on behalf of the United States rather than out of any personal interest or gain, no actionable claim against him should exist and therefore he should not have been found liable for damages caused by his negligence.