Christmas v. Russell 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, John Christmas, was held in a federal prison in Georgia. Christmas 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 power, 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 protect this 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 prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In the case of Christmas v. Russell, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of state law. He noted that while it is true that under Georgia law, a contract must be in writing to be enforceable, this does not mean that all contracts are invalid unless they are written down. Rather, there may still exist verbal agreements between parties which can be enforced if certain conditions are met - such as when both parties have agreed upon and accepted its terms and conditions. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence to suggest such an agreement had been made between Christmas and Russell; thus making it unjust for the court to deny relief simply because no written document existed proving their agreement.