Trebicock v. Wilson et ux was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a piece of land in the state of Ohio. The plaintiff, Trebicock, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendants, Wilson et ux, and that they had failed to deliver the deed to him. The defendants argued that they had never sold the land to Trebicock and that he had no legal claim to it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Trebicock, ruling that he had a valid claim to the land. The Court held that the defendants had made a contract with Trebicock to sell the land, and that they had failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Trebicock had a right to the land, as he had paid the purchase price and had taken possession of the land. The Court's decision in Trebicock v. Wilson et ux established the principle that a contract is binding even if the parties have not exchanged a deed. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contract disputes.

In Trebicock v. Wilson et ux, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy as expressed by the state legislature. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that although contracts made in violation of statutes are generally unenforceable, there may still be circumstances where such contracts can stand if they do not conflict with any public policy or harm anyone's rights or interests. In this case, he believed that no one's rights were harmed and thus enforcement would have been appropriate since both parties had agreed to its terms voluntarily and knowingly entered into it with full understanding of what they were doing at the time. Furthermore, Justice Field also noted that even though some states might prohibit certain types of agreements like those involved here due to their potential for abuse or fraudulence, other states allow them under certain conditions which must be taken into account before making a final determination about enforceability