Averill v. Smith 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, William Averill, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Averill sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 imprison 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.

In Averill v. Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and was therefore voidable by either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that since there was no evidence of fraud or mistake on either side, the contract should have been upheld as valid despite its illegality under state law. He reasoned that if contracts were invalidated simply for violating statutes then people would lack confidence in their ability to make binding agreements with each other which would lead to chaos in society. Furthermore, he argued that upholding such contracts did not necessarily mean condoning illegal behavior but rather recognizing the importance of enforcing private agreements between individuals even when they conflict with public laws.