Seibert v. Lewis 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, Seibert and Lewis, in which Seibert agreed to pay Lewis 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 Seibert v. Lewis established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of state laws.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Seibert v. Lewis, arguing that the majority had erred by failing to consider a crucial part of the case: whether or not there was an implied contract between Seibert and Lewis. According to Field, it was clear from both parties' actions that they had entered into some kind of agreement regarding their business dealings; thus, he argued that this should have been taken into consideration when deciding on damages for breach of contract. Furthermore, Field noted that while it may be true that no express written agreement existed between them at the time of dispute resolution, such agreements are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and therefore should still be considered valid in court proceedings. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that if all relevant facts were taken into account then a different outcome would have been reached in favor of Seibert's claim against Lewis for breach of contract.