Waite v. Dowley was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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, Waite and Dowley, in which Waite agreed to pay Dowley a certain amount of money for the sale of a horse. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of horses for more than a certain amount. 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 in bad faith or with the intent to defraud. The Court's decision in Waite v. Dowley 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 Waite v. Dowley, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of the parties had died before it was fully executed. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that if both parties had agreed to the terms of a contract prior to either party's death, then those terms should still be binding on their estates even after death. Furthermore, he reasoned that since there was no fraud or mistake involved in this case and both sides had acted in good faith by agreeing to all conditions prior to any deaths occurring, denying enforcement would create an unjust result for which there is no legal basis. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that the contract should have been enforced as written despite one party having passed away before its completion