Cornett v. Williams 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Cornett, was held in a federal prison in Kentucky. Cornett 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 that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. 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.

In Cornett v. Williams, the United States Supreme Court considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff argued that he had been promised certain land by the defendant in exchange for his services and labor, but that the defendant had failed to fulfill this promise. The majority opinion held that there was no evidence of any agreement between the parties and thus dismissed the claim on summary judgment. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while there may not have been a written contract or express agreement between them, it could be inferred from their actions and circumstances surrounding their relationship that they did indeed have an implied understanding regarding what would happen with respect to said land upon completion of plaintiff's work. He further noted how courts should take into account all relevant facts when determining whether such agreements exist as opposed to relying solely on written documents or explicit statements made by either party involved in order to reach a fair conclusion about contractual obligations owed one another