Teal v. Bilby was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, Teal, was held in a federal prison in Arizona. Teal sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Arizona 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power 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 prisoner's detention, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in TEAL v. BILBY, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract is not rendered void by an illegal consideration if it does not appear on its face to be for an unlawful purpose or object. The contract between Teal and Bilby did not contain any language indicating it was intended for an unlawful purpose, so Justice Field believed it should have been enforced as written. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been some illegality involved with the consideration of this particular contract, such illegality would only render the agreement voidable at Bilby’s option; however, since no action had been taken to avoid or rescind the agreement within a reasonable time after knowledge of its invalidity became known to him (Bilby), his right to do so had expired and thus could no longer be exercised against Teal who acted in good faith reliance upon their contractual obligations being fulfilled by both parties. As such, Justice Field concluded that Teal should have prevailed in this case because they were entitled under existing law and precedent to enforce their rights under said contract regardless of any alleged defects regarding its validity due solely from considerations arising out of matters extraneous thereto which neither party knew nor suspected when entering into same