In the case of Wood v. Beach, 1894, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale and delivery of goods could be enforced if it violated state law where it was made but not in its place of performance. The dispute arose when Mr. Wood agreed to sell and deliver alcohol to Mr. Beach in Iowa, where such sales were legal at that time; however, they contracted this agreement in Kansas where such transactions were illegal under state law. The court ruled that while generally contracts are governed by laws from their place of formation (lex loci contractus), there is an exception when enforcing said contract would violate public policy or morals - as was argued here due to Kansas's prohibition laws. However, after examining both states' policies on alcohol sales and considering previous rulings on similar issues (like insurance contracts), Justice Brewer concluded that since neither party intended any violation nor did enforcement require one - given delivery would occur legally within Iowa - then no substantial moral or policy concerns existed sufficient enough to void their agreement. Therefore he upheld the lower courts' decisions favoring Mr. Beach: affirming his right to enforce payment despite contracting within a jurisdiction prohibiting their transaction.

In the dissenting opinion for Wood v. Beach, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply existing law. He contended that under established legal principles, a patent holder has exclusive rights to their invention and can choose who they license it to. In this case, he believed that Mr. Wood had not violated any laws by refusing to grant a license for his patented grain elevator design to Mr. Beach's company due its use of inferior materials in construction which could potentially damage the reputation of his invention if failures occurred as a result of these substandard materials being used in licensed versions of his design. Justice Brewer also disagreed with the majority's assertion that antitrust laws were applicable in this situation since there was no evidence presented indicating an intent or attempt on part of Mr.Wood’s refusal constituted restraint trade or created monopoly power within market for grain elevators; rather he simply sought protect integrity value own intellectual property from potential harm caused by poor quality reproductions made possible through licensing agreements granted without regard material standards employed licensee during manufacturing process. Furthermore, Justice Brewer emphasized importance respecting sanctity private contracts upholding individual property rights context commercial transactions involving patented inventions asserting such protections fundamental tenets American economic system should not be undermined court rulings based misinterpretations statutory provisions related patents competition policy.