Boynton v. Ball 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Boynton, was held in a federal prison in the state of Illinois. Boynton 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Boynton v. Ball established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Boynton v. Ball, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of a contract between two parties. He argued that by interpreting it as they did, they were effectively rewriting it and disregarding its plain language. The contract was for an exchange of land; one party would give up their rights to certain property in return for another's promise to pay them $2,000 at some point in the future. Justice Field argued that this was not a case where either party could be said to have been misled or taken advantage of; both knew what they were getting into when signing it and thus should be held accountable for any losses incurred due to non-payment on either side. Furthermore, he noted that if one party failed to fulfill their obligations under such an agreement then there should be legal recourse available - but only after all other remedies had been exhausted first (such as suing for damages). In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while contracts are important documents which must be respected and upheld by courts whenever possible - judges must also take care not to rewrite them based on personal interpretations or opinions about how things "should" work out between two parties involved in a dispute over money owed or services rendered.