Stott et al. v. Rutherford 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 the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. The prisoner, Stott, had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The state court argued that it had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner was held in the state. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state court, ruling that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus could only be issued by a federal court. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal prison system. The Court's ruling in Stott et al. v. Rutherford established that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative and that state courts did not have the authority to issue the writ. The ruling also established that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal prison system. The ruling was an important precedent in the area of federalism and the relationship between state and federal courts.

In Stott et al. v. Rutherford, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of trust executed by William Rutherford to secure payment of his debt to Thomas Stott and others was valid under California law. The majority opinion held that the deed of trust was invalid because it had not been properly recorded in accordance with state law; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since there were no other creditors involved who could have been prejudiced by the lack of recording, it should be assumed that all parties knew about and accepted the terms of the agreement; secondly, he noted that even if recording had been required for validity under California law at the time (which is still disputed), such a requirement would violate due process as guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions. Thus Justice Field concluded that regardless of any technicalities or legal requirements surrounding recordation in California at this time, justice demanded upholding William Rutherford's deed of trust as valid.