Dewing v. Perdicaries 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Dewing, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state court. 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 the writ of habeas corpus. 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. The Court's decision in Dewing v. Perdicaries established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

In Dewing v. Perdicaries, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable because of its moral obligations; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that contracts must have some form of consideration in order for them to be legally binding and enforceable by law. He further stated that if there is no consideration present then any agreement or promise made would not be considered an obligation under the law but rather just a mere expression of good will with no legal effect whatsoever. Therefore, he concluded that since there was no consideration given in this case, it should not be enforced by courts as a matter of public policy and justice