Weitzel v. Rabe 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, Weitzel and Rabe, in which Weitzel agreed to pay Rabe 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 Weitzel v. Rabe 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Weitzel v. Rabe, arguing that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is not necessarily invalidated by one party's failure to perform their obligations under it; rather, he asserted that such contracts remain valid until they are legally terminated or rescinded. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that when a contract has been breached by one of its signatories, the other party may sue for damages resulting from said breach but cannot seek rescission of the agreement itself unless there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in making it. In this case specifically, he noted how no evidence had been presented to suggest any kind of fraudulent behavior on either side and thus concluded that rescission was inappropriate as an available remedy for Weitzel’s claim against Rabe.