Putnam & Another v. Ingraham 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 the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The prisoner argued that the state court had no authority to issue the writ because the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ because the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court also held that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court concluded that the state court had no authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus and that the prisoner must be released from federal custody.

In Putnam & Another v. Ingraham, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a patent for an improved method of making and using fire-arms could be granted to two individuals who had not invented it but merely purchased the rights from its original inventor. The majority opinion held that such patents were invalid because they did not meet the requirements of novelty and invention as set forth in U.S. law at the time; however, Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that while there may have been some technical deficiencies in their application for a patent, these should not prevent them from receiving one if they had indeed acquired valid title to it through purchase or otherwise obtained exclusive control over it by other means. He argued further that since Congress has provided no specific rules governing how patents are issued or transferred between parties, courts should err on the side of granting them when possible so as to encourage innovation and progress within society rather than stifling it through overly strict interpretations of existing laws which might ultimately lead to injustice being done against those seeking protection under them