Vance v. Burbank 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, Vance and Burbank, in which Vance agreed to pay Burbank 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 Vance v. Burbank 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.

In Vance v. Burbank, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced in court when one of the parties had died before it was completed. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and did not meet certain legal requirements for being valid. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there should be an exception to these rules in cases where both parties have already performed their obligations under the agreement prior to one party's death. He argued that if both sides had done what they promised then it would be unjust to deny them relief simply because of a technicality like lack of consideration or other formalities required by law. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such agreements would encourage people to fulfill their promises even after someone has passed away since they know there is some chance of getting something out of it despite the fact that one party can no longer perform his duties as agreed upon originally