In the case of Worley v. Tobacco Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a tobacco company and a tobacco farmer was valid. The tobacco company had contracted with the farmer to purchase a certain amount of tobacco at a fixed price. The farmer had delivered the tobacco, but the company refused to pay the agreed-upon price. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the tobacco company had accepted the tobacco and had not raised any objections to the terms of the contract. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and the tobacco company was obligated to pay the agreed-upon price.

In the case of Worley v. Tobacco Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite its illegality under state law. The majority opinion held that contracts which are illegal under state law cannot be enforced in court and therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against the tobacco company. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while it is true that an illegal contract should not be enforceable in court, there were certain exceptions to this rule when public policy considerations come into play. He argued that if enforcing such a contract would benefit society as a whole by encouraging people to act within their legal rights then it should still be considered valid and binding on both parties involved. In his view, allowing courts to consider these types of cases would help ensure fairness and justice for all citizens regardless of their economic or social status.