Bean v. Patterson 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, William Bean, was held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. Bean 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 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 not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. 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 Bean v. Patterson, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that under California state law, an executor was not liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they accepted responsibility for them or otherwise assumed liability. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Bean had done either and thus he should not be held responsible for any debt owed by his predecessor's estate. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Bean were found liable under California state law it would still be improper to hold him accountable since the original creditor had already been paid off before Beans appointment as executor; therefore any further claims against him would constitute double jeopardy which is prohibited by both federal and state laws. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that because there was no legal basis on which to hold Bean accountable he should have been granted relief from judgment and allowed to proceed with his appeal without having first posted a bond or security deposit as required by the lower court ruling