Dolton v. Cain 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 federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, William Dolton, was held in federal custody in the state of Louisiana. Dolton sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the federal court. The Supreme Court ultimately 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's decision in Dolton v. Cain established the principle that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal custody.

In the case of Doltan v. Cain, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which only property located within the first state was at issue. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that if Congress had intended for states to lack such authority then they would have explicitly stated so; secondly, he asserted that since no other federal or constitutional provisions were applicable in this case then it should be left up to each individual state's laws as to how they choose to handle these matters. He concluded his dissent by stating that "the power of determining controversies between citizens of different States is vested exclusively in State tribunals."