Sutter v. Robinson 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, Sutter and Robinson, in which Robinson agreed to pay Sutter 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 Sutter v. Robinson 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 the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sutter v. Robinson, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to an unjust result for the plaintiff. He argued that under earlier cases such as Smith v. Jones, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of their property could recover damages from those responsible regardless of whether they were acting on behalf of another person or not. In this case, he believed that since Robinson had acted unlawfully by taking possession of Sutter's land without any legal authority to do so, she should be liable for damages even if she was acting on behalf of her husband at his direction. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while it may have been reasonable for Robinson to rely upon her husband's instructions given their marital relationship and trust between them, this did not absolve her from liability when those instructions resulted in a wrongful act against another person such as Sutter here.