Blake v. Robertson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 Blake, was held in a federal prison in the state of Texas. Blake 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 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 for violations of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the power to determine whether the federal government had violated the Constitution. 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Blake v. Robertson, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider certain facts of the case. He argued that under California law, a deed was not valid until it was recorded with a county recorder's office; since this deed had not been recorded at the time of sale, he believed it should be considered invalid. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were no legal requirement for recording deeds in California at this time, common sense would dictate such an action as necessary to protect buyers from fraud or misrepresentation by sellers. He also pointed out that while both parties may have acted in good faith when entering into their agreement regarding title transfer of land parcels owned by one party and sold to another without proper recordation of said transaction - they could still be held liable for any damages resulting from their failure to follow state laws on property transfers. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that regardless of whether or not either party intended harm upon each other through their actions - they must still abide by existing laws governing real estate transactions within California and thus should suffer consequences accordingly if found guilty thereof.