Davies v. Slidell 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 federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, John Davies, was arrested in Louisiana and held in federal custody. Davies sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied. Davies then appealed 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davies v. Slidell, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has performed their part or not. The Court had previously held this to be true in cases such as Taylor v. Caldwell and Hutton v. Warren; however, Justice Field believed that the majority failed to consider these precedents when deciding this case and instead relied solely upon an earlier ruling from 1871 which he felt was wrongly decided at the time it was made due to its inconsistency with prior rulings by other courts on similar matters. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were any inconsistencies between previous decisions regarding contracts, they should have been addressed through legislation rather than judicial interpretation since it would provide more certainty for all involved parties going forward into future disputes over contractual obligations