Sherry v. McKinley was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, William Sherry, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Sherry sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 remedy, 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 remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Sherry v. McKinley established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sherry v. McKinley, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason for not doing so. In this case, he argued, there was no such legal reason; rather than being voidable due to fraud or mistake as alleged by the plaintiff, it had been fully performed on both sides and thus could not be set aside without injustice. Furthermore, he noted that even if one of the parties had acted improperly during negotiations leading up to the contract's formation - which had not been established - this would still not render it invalid since neither party relied upon any misrepresentation when entering into it. As such, Justice Field concluded that enforcing the contract as written was necessary in order for justice to prevail in this case.