In Snyder v. Sickles, the Supreme Court of the United States 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 case involved a dispute over ownership rights to certain real estate located in New York City. At issue was whether or not Mr. Sickles, who had purchased the property from its original owner without obtaining permission from his wife as required by New York State law at that time, would be allowed to keep title and possession of the land despite having violated this statute. In deciding this matter, the court held that although Mr. Sickles' actions were illegal under state law he should still be able to enforce his contract with respect to ownership rights because such enforcement did not violate any federal laws or constitutional provisions; thus allowing him retain title and possession of said property even though he had acted unlawfully according to state statutes at that time

In Snyder v. Sickles, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made with knowledge of an existing legal disability on one side. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable due to this legal disability, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that if both parties were aware of the legal disability and still agreed to enter into a valid agreement, then they should be allowed to enforce it in court as long as there is no fraud or mistake involved. Furthermore, he stated that any other ruling would lead to unjust results since one party may have already performed their part of the bargain before learning about the other's legal incapacity. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by asserting that contracts should only be voided if they are found invalid for reasons such as fraud or mistake; otherwise courts must honor them regardless of any preexisting disabilities on either side.