Eames v. Andrews 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 a prisoner, Eames, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Eames sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court. 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 power, 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 interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Eames v. Andrews established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Eames v. Andrews, a case concerning the validity of an assignment of a patent for an invention. He argued that while it was true that patents are personal property and can be assigned by their owners, they must still meet certain requirements to be valid assignments. In this particular case, he found that there had been no delivery or transfer of possession from the assignor to the assignee as required by law; thus, he concluded that the assignment was invalid and should not have been enforced by either party. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if such delivery had occurred at some point prior to litigation being initiated between both parties over ownership rights of said patent - which neither side could prove - then any subsequent agreement made between them would also be void due to lack of consideration given on behalf of either party involved in making such agreement. As such, Justice Field dissented with his colleagues' decision and held firm in his belief that since there had been no valid transfer or delivery made regarding ownership rights for said patent at issue heretofore nor any consideration exchanged between both parties thereafter – then ultimately this assignment should not have been recognized as legally binding upon either one them under existing laws governing these matters