Venable v. Richards 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, Venable and Richards, in which Venable agreed to pay Richards a certain amount of money in exchange for a deed to 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 Venable v. Richards 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.

In the case of Venable v. Richards, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because it was not brought by an individual with standing. He reasoned that since neither party had any legal interest or right to sue, there was no cause of action and thus no basis for federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that even if one of the parties did have such a right or interest, they would be unable to prove their claim without introducing evidence from outside sources - something which could only be done through state courts. As such, Justice Field concluded that this matter should have been left for resolution in state court rather than being heard before the Supreme Court.