Weatherby v. Bowie 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 Weatherby, a prisoner in a federal prison, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Mississippi. The state court granted the writ, and Weatherby was released from prison. The United States government then sued Weatherby and the state court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 power, 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 the writ of habeas corpus to Weatherby. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this fundamental right.

In Weatherby v. Bowie, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when one of the parties had not received full payment for their services. The majority opinion held that since there was no evidence to suggest that either party intended to enter into an agreement without full payment being made, then the contract should be enforced and both parties must fulfill their obligations under it. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that if one of the contracting parties has not been fully paid for his or her services as agreed upon in the contract, then he or she is entitled to recover any unpaid balance due before they are required to perform any duties under said agreement. He further stated that such a rule would ensure fairness in contractual agreements by preventing individuals from taking advantage of others who may have already performed some part of their contracted obligations but were never compensated accordingly.