Cofield v. McClelland 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, Cofield, was held in a federal prison in the state of Mississippi. Cofield sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the federal 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power 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 power to imprison individuals. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison.

In the case of Cofield v. McClelland, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a probate court decision in which it had no original jurisdiction. The majority opinion held that such appeals were not permissible under existing law and thus affirmed the lower court's ruling. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while there may be some technical issues regarding appellate jurisdiction, this should not prevent justice from being served in cases where substantial rights are at stake. He argued that allowing appeals would ensure fairness for all parties involved and ultimately lead to better outcomes than if only one party could challenge decisions made by courts without any oversight or review process available to them. Furthermore, he noted that denying such appeals would create an unequal system of justice based on geography as those living closer to higher courts would have greater access to their services than those who lived further away from them.