Jennison v. Kirk 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 person who was being held in custody by a private individual. The case arose when a man named Jennison was arrested by a private individual, Kirk, for a debt he owed. Jennison then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, asking to be released from Kirk's custody. The state court granted the writ, and Kirk appealed 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 prerogative of the federal government, and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for the violation of a person's constitutional rights, and that the state court did not have the power to enforce such rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a person who was being held in custody by a private individual. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a prerogative of the federal government, and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jennison v. Kirk, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a state court had no jurisdiction to try a person for an alleged crime committed outside of its boundaries, regardless of whether or not they were brought into the state by force or fraud. Furthermore, he asserted that it was unconstitutional for any court to exercise such power as it would violate both Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 and Article III Section 2 Clause 3 of the United States Constitution which guarantee citizens due process rights when charged with criminal offenses. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if states are allowed to exercise this type of authority then there is nothing preventing them from trying individuals who have never been within their borders at all - something which could lead to serious abuses and violations of civil liberties.