Thorp v. Hammond was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Thorp, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Thorp 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 this right. 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 this right.

In Thorp v. Hammond, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was fulfilled. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it did not meet certain legal requirements and thus lacked consideration. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there were sufficient facts in evidence to show that both parties intended for their agreement to be binding upon death and therefore should have been upheld by the court. He argued that if contracts can only be enforced while both parties are alive then they would become meaningless after death since no one would ever know what promises were made or agreed upon during life. Furthermore, he noted how such an interpretation of law would lead to injustice as many people rely on contracts being honored even after death in order for their families or businesses to continue functioning properly without disruption due to unexpected events like sudden deaths occurring unexpectedly. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against enforcing strict rules regarding contractual obligations which may ultimately result in unfairness towards those who relied on these agreements being fulfilled despite any changes in circumstances beyond their control