In Earle et al. v. McVeigh, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner, McVeigh, who was being held in federal custody. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. 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 federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for state prisoners, and that the federal government had its own remedies for federal prisoners. 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 who was being held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority.

In Earle et al. v. McVeigh, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of foreclosure in favor of a mortgagee would be binding on subsequent purchasers who had no knowledge or notice of the proceedings leading up to it. The majority opinion held that such judgments were valid and enforceable against all parties regardless of their lack of knowledge or notice, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that due process required some form of notification before any party could be bound by such judgments; otherwise innocent third-parties might suffer harm without ever having been given an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these kinds of judgements would create uncertainty for future buyers and lenders as they would have no way to know if there were any prior mortgages on the property they wished to purchase or lend money against until after they had already entered into an agreement with the seller/borrower - at which point it may be too late for them to back out without suffering losses themselves.