Bushnell v. Kennedy was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal prisoner. The case arose when a prisoner, John Bushnell, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Bushnell sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, but the court refused to issue the writ. Bushnell then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal prisoner. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was a power reserved to the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the exercise of that right. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal prisoner. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was a power reserved to the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the exercise of that right.

In Bushnell v. Kennedy, 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 executed. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it had not been completed by both parties and thus did not meet all of the requirements for enforceability under existing law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that contracts should still be enforceable even if one party has passed away prior to completion as long as there is evidence that they intended to complete their obligations at some point in time. He further argued that this would encourage people to enter into contracts with confidence knowing they will receive what is due from any agreement entered into in good faith regardless of unforeseen circumstances such as death or illness which may prevent either party from completing its obligations on time.