This Supreme Court case involves Watson Freeman, the Marshal of the United States, as plaintiff in error. He is suing Jabez C. Howe, John H. Wilkins and William Minot for an alleged breach of contract regarding a bond that was issued by them to secure payment for certain duties performed by Freeman on behalf of the government. The court found that although there had been some technical errors made in executing the bond agreement between all parties involved, these errors did not invalidate it or render it unenforceable under law; therefore they ruled in favor of Freeman and ordered Howe et al to pay him what he was owed according to their original agreement.

In Watson Freeman, Marshal of the United States v. Jabez C. Howe et al., the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had not given sufficient authority to the Circuit Court in this case for it to issue a writ of habeas corpus and order the release of prisoners held by a marshal on behalf of another court. The dissenters believed that only Congress could authorize such an action, as they were responsible for creating laws governing federal courts and their jurisdiction over state matters. Furthermore, they argued that if any other court was allowed to interfere with proceedings already underway in another court's jurisdiction, then chaos would ensue as each circuit attempted to assert its own power over those within its boundaries. Ultimately, while recognizing that there may have been some injustice done in this particular case due to delays caused by jurisdictional issues between two different courts, they felt strongly enough about preserving judicial integrity and preventing future conflicts from arising between circuits so as not grant relief via habeas corpus here today.