Andrews v. Congar was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Andrews, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Andrews sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect the rights of individuals. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect the rights of individuals.

In Andrews v. Congar, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before its completion. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it had not been fully performed by both parties and thus did not meet all of the requirements for enforceability under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since there was no dispute as to what each party's obligations were under the agreement, it should have been enforced despite one party having passed away prior to its completion. He argued that if contracts are only enforceable when they are completed by both parties then many agreements would never come into effect due to unforeseen circumstances such as death or illness preventing performance on either side. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such an agreement would provide much needed relief in cases where someone has already provided consideration but is unable to receive their promised benefit due to another’s untimely passing or other unexpected event beyond their control