Gosling v. Roberts 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, John Gosling, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Gosling sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 the case of Gosling v. Roberts, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had died before it was fully executed. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that there should be no distinction between executory contracts and those which are partially performed at death since both can provide benefit to the deceased's estate if enforced. Furthermore, he noted that in some cases where partial performance has occurred prior to death, courts have found ways to recognize them as valid agreements under certain circumstances even though full execution did not take place until after death. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that these types of contracts should be recognized as legally binding so long as sufficient evidence exists demonstrating an intent by both parties for their agreement to become effective upon completion or performance by either side regardless of who dies first.