Street v. Ferry 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, William Street, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Street 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Street v. Ferry established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Street v. Ferry, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that under a strict interpretation of the law, it was clear that there had been no breach of contract between Street and Ferry as they had not agreed upon any specific time for payment or delivery of goods; thus, there could be no legal basis for awarding damages to Street. Furthermore, he noted that even if one were to assume an implied agreement between them regarding payment terms - which he believed would have been highly unlikely given their prior business dealings - then such an agreement should only be enforced when it is reasonable and justifiable in light of all circumstances surrounding the transaction. In this case however, Justice Field found neither reason nor justice in enforcing such an implied agreement since doing so would result in punishing Ferry despite his good faith effort to pay what he owed within a reasonable amount of time after being informed by Street about his debt obligations.