Tarver v. Keach 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 Tarver, was held in a federal prison in Georgia. Tarver sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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. 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

In Tarver v. Keach, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against two defendants who were residents of the same state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity of citizenship between all parties involved in the suit. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under existing law and precedent, courts should be able to exercise their power when there is no diversity of citizenship among all parties but one party has been served with process within its own boundaries. He argued that such service gave rise to personal jurisdiction over both defendants regardless of their residence or lack thereof outside those boundaries and thus provided sufficient basis for exercising judicial authority in this case.