Roberts v. Bolles was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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, Roberts and Bolles, in which Roberts agreed to pay Bolles a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of property 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 contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made without proper consideration. The Court's decision in Roberts v. Bolles established that a state court could not enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that a state court cannot enforce a contract that is made in violation of the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Roberts v. Bolles, a case concerning whether or not a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the enforcement of a municipal ordinance. Justice Field argued that while it was true that states could not interfere with federal laws and regulations, they were allowed to pass legislation on matters which did not conflict with those laws and regulations. He further argued that since this particular ordinance did not conflict with any federal law or regulation, the state court had every right to issue an injunction against its enforcement. Furthermore, he noted that if such injunctions were prohibited by Congress then it would be up to them - rather than the Supreme Court - to make such changes in order for their wishes to be respected. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that he believed there was no reason why states should be prevented from exercising their authority over local issues when doing so does not violate any existing federal law or regulation.