Sturdy v. Jackaway 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 a prisoner, John Sturdy, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Sturdy 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 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 Sturdy v. Jackaway, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale of land in California was valid under state law. The majority opinion held that it was not, as there had been no delivery of possession to the buyer and no payment made by him. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since both parties were aware of their obligations under the contract at its formation and neither party had repudiated it or taken any action inconsistent with its terms prior to suit being brought before court; secondly, he contended that even if delivery had not yet occurred when suit commenced (as alleged by plaintiff), defendant still could have performed his part of the agreement after commencement without violating any rule against perpetuities or other legal impediment. He concluded that based on these facts alone - regardless of whether either party actually did perform their respective duties -the contract should be enforced according to its original terms and conditions as written between them