Sharp v. Riessner 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, Sharp, was held in a federal prison in the state of Pennsylvania. Sharp sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. 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 protect the rights of individuals. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held 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 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 protect the rights of individuals.

In Sharp v. Riessner, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced in court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as the contract lacked consideration and thus did not meet all of the requirements for enforceability under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while consideration may have been lacking at first glance, there were other factors present which should render the contract valid and binding on both parties. He argued that since one party had already begun to perform their duties under the agreement before any dispute arose regarding its validity or lack thereof, they should be allowed to continue doing so without fear of legal repercussions or being forced to forfeit what they had already done in good faith. Furthermore he noted that if such contracts were deemed unenforceable due to lack of consideration then many innocent people would suffer unjustly by having their rights taken away despite performing faithfully according to an agreement made in good faith