Arthur v. Goddard 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Arthur, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Arthur 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

In Arthur v. Goddard, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was fully performed. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it had been made with an individual and thus did not survive his death. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts should generally remain enforceable even after one party has passed away unless there is clear evidence in the language of the agreement itself or in applicable state law indicating otherwise. He argued that if such agreements were allowed to become unenforceable upon death, then creditors would suffer significant losses due to their inability to collect on debts owed by deceased debtors and businesses would also suffer as they relied on these types of contracts for financial stability and security.