Hendrie v. Sayles 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, William Hendrie, was held in a federal prison in the state of Indiana. Hendrie 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. The Court's decision in Hendrie v. Sayles established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hendrie v. Sayles, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a married woman had no right to convey property without her husband's consent; thus, when Mrs. Sayles sold land to Mr. Hendrie without her husband's permission or knowledge, she did not have legal authority to do so and the sale was voidable at any time before it was confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Justice Field further noted that even if Mrs. Sayles had been legally authorized to make such a sale on behalf of herself and her husband jointly, there were still other issues with regard to whether Mr. Hendrie could claim title due to his failure to pay for all of the land he purchased from Mrs. Sayles as well as his lack of good faith in making payment for what he did purchase from her prior to confirmation by a court order which would render him unable establish title through adverse possession or otherwise acquire rights over said property against either party involved in this case - namely himself or Mr..Sayles - regardless of how long he held onto it after purchasing it from Mrs..Sayle