In the case of William Christy v. Hiram Henley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The plaintiff, William Christy, argued that he and defendant Hiram Henley had entered into a valid agreement for the sale of land which was not subject to any state laws prohibiting such transactions. However, the defendant argued that since their contract violated an existing statute at the time they entered into it, then it should not be enforceable by either party. After considering both sides’ arguments and examining relevant precedent cases on similar issues from other states' courts as well as federal court decisions on contracts in conflict with statutes or ordinances, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Henley; holding that when there is a clear conflict between an agreement and applicable statutory law then neither party can seek enforcement through legal action because such agreements are void ab initio (from its inception).

In the case of William Christy v. Hiram Henley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed Christy's claim against Henley. However, Justice Daniel dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing contracts which violate statutes would lead to chaos and confusion in commercial transactions. He argued that while states have an interest in protecting their citizens from fraud or other harm caused by illegal agreements, they should also recognize valid contractual obligations when those obligations are voluntarily entered into with full knowledge of all relevant facts. Furthermore, he noted that allowing courts to refuse enforcement based solely on technical violations of statutory law would create uncertainty for businesses who rely upon these agreements as part of their daily operations and ultimately undermine public confidence in the judicial system itself.