Crim v. Handley 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Crim, was held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. Crim 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 Crim v. Handley, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by either party in court. The majority opinion held that such contracts were enforceable and allowed for legal action to be taken against one of the parties if they failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that it would lead to an increase in litigation and create uncertainty regarding contractual agreements due to its broad interpretation of what constituted a valid contract. He argued that allowing partial performance as evidence of a binding agreement would open up too many avenues for potential disputes and make it difficult for courts to determine which contracts should be enforced or not. Furthermore, he believed there should have been more stringent requirements when establishing an enforceable contract so as not to encourage frivolous lawsuits over minor matters or allow people who had only partially fulfilled their obligations under an agreement seek compensation from those who had fully complied with theirs.