Moncure v. Zunts 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Moncure, was held in a federal prison in Virginia and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ, but the federal government argued 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 power, 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 Moncure v. Zunts 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. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to imprison individuals without interference from the state court.

In Moncure v. Zunts, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was fully executed. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it had not been completed by both parties while they were alive. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that contracts are binding upon heirs and executors even if one party has passed away prior to completion of the agreement. He reasoned that since there is no legal impediment preventing an heir from entering into a contract on behalf of their deceased relative, then any contractual obligations entered into by said relative should still remain valid after death as long as all other conditions have been met for its enforcement. Furthermore, he noted that such agreements can often provide much needed financial relief to those who would otherwise suffer due to their loved ones' passing and thus should be upheld whenever possible under law.