In MCQUIDDY v. WARE, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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 petitioner, McQuiddy, had been convicted of a crime in the state of Georgia and was serving his sentence in a federal prison in Alabama. The state court had issued a writ of habeas corpus to the warden of the federal prison, ordering him to produce McQuiddy before the court. The warden refused to comply, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 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 for individuals who were being held in violation of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the authority to determine whether a federal prisoner was being held in violation of the Constitution. The Court's decision in MCQUIDDY v. WARE established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal prisoners. The decision also reaffirmed the federal government's authority to imprison individuals, and the limits of state court authority in this area.

In the case of McQuiddy v. Ware, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a deed from one party to another was valid and enforceable in court. The majority opinion held that it was not, as there were certain irregularities in its execution which invalidated it under Tennessee law. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that while these irregularities may have been present, they did not render the deed void but merely voidable; thus making it still legally binding on both parties involved until such time as either party chose to challenge its validity in court. He further argued that since neither party had done so at this point then the deed should be considered valid and enforceable by all courts within Tennessee's jurisdiction.