Antoni v. Greenhow 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 a prisoner, Antoni, was held in a federal prison in Virginia. Antoni 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 prerogative, 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 fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's ability to exercise its power. 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Antoni v. Greenhow, arguing that the majority had misconstrued and misinterpreted Virginia's statute of limitations for debt collection. He argued that the state law was clear: a creditor must bring suit within five years from when their right to sue first accrued or else they would be barred from recovering any amount due on an unpaid debt. The majority opinion held that this time limit did not apply if there were intervening payments made by the debtor during those five years, but Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of Virginia law and found it to be contrary to its plain language as well as prior decisions rendered by other courts in similar cases. He further noted that such an interpretation could lead to unfair results where creditors are allowed unlimited time periods for recovery despite having received partial payment over several years, which he felt was unjustified under existing legal precedent.