Cheely & Others v. Clayton 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 the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. The prisoner, Clayton, had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The state court argued that it had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner was being held in the state. 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 remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in state prisons, not federal prisons. The Court's decision in Cheely & Others v. Clayton established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners who are being held in federal prisons. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy that is available only to prisoners who are being held in state prisons.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cheely & Others v. Clayton, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both sides, and if one party fails to fulfill their obligations under it then they are liable for damages. In this case, he believed that the defendants had breached their agreement with plaintiffs by failing to pay them for services rendered as agreed upon in writing. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that even though there were some ambiguities present within the contract itself which could have been clarified through further negotiation or litigation prior to its execution; those issues did not invalidate it entirely nor absolve either side of any liability associated with it once signed into effect. Therefore, he concluded that since no such clarification ever took place before signing off on said document - all parties involved must abide by its terms regardless of any misunderstandings or disagreements over interpretation afterwards; thus making defendant responsible for compensating plaintiff accordingly as per contractual obligation set forth therein from beginning stages onward until fulfilled completely without exception whatsoever