King v. Pardee 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, King, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. 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 the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, 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 fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court's decision in King v. Pardee established 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 decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In the case of King v. Pardee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed given by an individual to another person could be revoked if it had been accepted and acted upon in good faith. The majority opinion held that such a deed could not be revoked once it had been accepted and acted upon in good faith, as this would constitute unjust enrichment for the grantor at the expense of the grantee. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented to show that any consideration had passed between parties; secondly, he argued that allowing revocation under these circumstances would not necessarily lead to unjust enrichment because both parties were aware of their respective rights when entering into agreement. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against upholding precedent which did not take into account all relevant facts before making its decision.