In Francis & Others v. Flinn, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The case arose when the petitioner, Francis, was convicted in a federal court for a crime committed in the state of Missouri. Francis then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's decision. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's decision.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Francis & Others v. Flinn, arguing that the Court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that there was no error in their judgment and that it was supported by both law and fact. The case concerned a dispute over a will which left certain property to two children, with one-half going to each child upon reaching majority age or marrying before then. Justice Field believed this arrangement did not violate any laws as it provided for equal division between two parties who had an equal right to receive such benefits from their father's estate; he also noted that if either party died without issue before they reached majority age or married, then their share would pass on to other relatives as specified in the will itself. Furthermore, Justice Field argued against overturning precedent established by prior cases concerning similar matters involving wills and estates; he felt these decisions were soundly based on legal principles and should be respected rather than overturned simply because new facts had been presented in this particular case.