In Knox County Court v. United States Ex Rel. Geo. W. Harshman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued to a prisoner who had been convicted of a crime in a state court. The petitioner, Geo. W. Harshman, had been convicted of larceny in the Knox County Court of Tennessee and sentenced to two years in prison. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, claiming that he had been denied due process of law in the state court. The Circuit Court denied the petition, and Harshman appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court had correctly denied the petition. The Court noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to challenge a state court conviction unless the petitioner could show that he had been denied due process of law. In this case, the Court found that Harshman had not been denied due process of law, and thus the writ of habeas corpus was not available to him. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to challenge a state court conviction on the grounds that the conviction was erroneous. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was only available to challenge a state court conviction if the petitioner could show that he had been denied due process of law.

In Knox County Court v. United States Ex Rel. Geo. W. Harshman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a writ of error could be issued from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to review a judgment rendered by an inferior court in favor of relator George W. Harshman against Knox County and its officers for damages arising out of their alleged wrongful acts in preventing him from taking possession and exercising his office as county clerk under an appointment made by Governor Brownlow pursuant to certain statutes passed by Congress during Reconstruction after the Civil War in that state. The majority opinion held that such writs were not authorized because they would interfere with proceedings pending before state courts, while Justice Field dissented on two grounds: first, he argued that since there was no other remedy available to relator than this one provided by federal law it should not be denied; second, he maintained that even if it did interfere with proceedings pending before state courts this interference would still be permissible due to Congress's power over matters involving Reconstruction legislation which had been expressly granted them under Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution guaranteeing every State "a Republican Form Of Government".