Sully v. Drennan & Others 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, Sully, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. 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 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 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 should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect the rights of individuals.

In Sully v. Drennan & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a party could be held liable for damages caused by an act of another person that they had negligently hired or retained. The majority opinion found that there was no liability in this case because the defendant did not have control over the employee's actions and therefore could not be held responsible for them. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that employers should indeed be held accountable when their employees cause harm due to negligence on behalf of the employer in hiring or retaining them. He reasoned that employers are best situated to prevent such harms since they can exercise greater care than third parties in selecting competent workers who will follow instructions and obey laws while performing their duties. Furthermore, he noted that it is only fair to hold employers accountable as they benefit financially from any work performed by their employees regardless of its legality or morality; thus, if those same employees commit wrongful acts then it is reasonable for society to expect some form of compensation from those who profited off said wrongs.