Avery v. Hackley 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, Avery, was held in a federal prison in the state of Virginia. Avery 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. 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Avery v. Hackley, a case concerning whether or not an individual was entitled to compensation for services rendered as a special agent of the United States government. Justice Field argued that while it is true that no express contract existed between the parties, there were sufficient facts and circumstances present which created an implied contract between them. He noted that when one party performs certain acts at the request of another with knowledge of their purpose and without any objection from either side, then this creates an obligation on both sides to fulfill their respective duties under such agreement. Furthermore, he argued that since there had been no dispute over payment prior to suit being brought against Hackley by Avery, then it could be inferred from these facts alone that some sort of understanding must have existed between them regarding payment for services rendered. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that Avery should be compensated for his work as a special agent due to this implied contractual relationship existing between him and Hackley.