Wade v. Walnut was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on the sale of timber that was cut from a tract of land owned by a non-resident. The Court held that the state could not impose such a tax, as it would be a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The case arose when the state of Arkansas attempted to impose a tax on the sale of timber that was cut from a tract of land owned by a non-resident, William Wade. Wade argued that the tax was unconstitutional, as it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with Wade, holding that the tax was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution was intended to protect the rights of citizens of other states, and that the tax imposed by Arkansas was a violation of this clause. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Arkansas could not impose a tax on the sale of timber that was cut from a tract of land owned by a non-resident, as it would be a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.

In Wade v. Walnut, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and affirmed the decision of the lower court. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that there is no general rule which renders all contracts void if they are contrary to law or public policy. He argued that while some statutes may provide for criminal penalties for those who enter into certain types of agreements, other statutes do not necessarily render such agreements unenforceable by courts; rather, it should depend on what type of agreement has been entered into and its purpose under consideration at the time. Furthermore, he noted that even if an agreement does violate a statute or public policy considerations, courts still have discretion as to whether enforcement would be appropriate in any given case based on their own assessment of fairness and justice involved with enforcing such an agreement.