Hussey v. Smith 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, Hussey, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Hussey 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power 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 Hussey v. Smith 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.

In Hussey v. Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed should be enforced. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it lacked consideration and was therefore voidable at the option of either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since part of the agreement had already been performed by both parties, there must have been some form of consideration present in order for them to do so. He argued further that even if no formal consideration existed when they entered into their agreement, it would still be enforceable due to its partial performance and thus should not be voided simply because one party now wished to avoid fulfilling their obligations under it.