Ricker v. Powell 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, Powell and Ricker, in which Powell agreed to pay Ricker a certain amount of money for the sale of a horse. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of horses 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 protect its citizens from fraud and other illegal activities. The Court also noted that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of its laws. The Court concluded that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court held that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of its laws and that the state court could not enforce such contracts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in RICKER v. POWELL, arguing that the majority had misapplied a previous Supreme Court decision to reach its conclusion. He argued that the case of The Bank of Augusta v Earle was not applicable because it did not involve an action for damages against a third party who had received money from a debtor and failed to pay it over as directed by law. In this case, Powell was liable only if he knew or should have known that Ricker's debtors were insolvent when they paid him; however, there was no evidence presented at trial which showed such knowledge on his part. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that Powell could not be held liable for failing to pay over funds he lawfully received from Ricker's debtors since there was no proof of any wrongful act or intent on his part.