Buchanan v. Litchfield 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when the petitioner, John Buchanan, was convicted of a federal crime and sentenced to imprisonment in a federal prison. After his conviction, Buchanan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, seeking to be released from federal custody. 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 a person convicted of a federal crime. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to those who were unlawfully detained, and that the petitioner had not alleged any unlawful detention. 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 a person convicted of a federal crime.

In the case of Buchanan v. Litchfield, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider certain relevant facts. He noted that under Missouri state law, when an executor is appointed by a court, they are granted full authority over all assets belonging to the estate until such time as those assets have been distributed among heirs or other beneficiaries. In this particular case, it was undisputed that at least some of these assets were still in possession of the executor when he died; thus making them part of his own personal estate rather than part of his role as executor for another's estate. As such, Justice Field concluded that any claims against those assets should be brought against his personal representatives rather than against those who succeeded him as executors for others' estates.