Cropley v. Cooper 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 federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Cropley, was held in federal custody in the state of Tennessee. Cropley 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 federal custody. 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 court's decision. 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 court's decision. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cropley v. Cooper, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted the law and failed to consider relevant precedents. He argued that under existing statutes, a party could not be held liable for an act of another unless they were either present at or participated in it. In this case, there was no evidence that Cooper had been present when Cropley's property was damaged or taken away; therefore he should not have been found liable for any damages caused by his employees' actions. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Cooper had given orders to his employees regarding how to handle Cropley's property, those orders would only be binding on them as long as they did not conflict with state laws - which did not appear to be the case here. Finally, he pointed out that while employers are generally responsible for their employee’s acts done within scope of employment – such responsibility does not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable under all circumstances; thus making it impossible for him to agree with the majority’s conclusion in this instance