Story v. Black 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 held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Story, was held in federal custody in the state of Georgia. Story sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The federal government then sought to have the writ of habeas corpus vacated, 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to grant the writ. 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 federal custody. 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 detain a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Story v. Black, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. Furthermore, he noted that if one party had acted fraudulently or otherwise wrongfully in entering into the contract then they could seek relief from a court of equity rather than relying on an interpretation of common law which would allow them to avoid their contractual obligations altogether. Justice Field concluded by noting his belief that contracts should be held sacred and not lightly disregarded by courts when enforcing them would cause hardship for either party involved.