Gottfried v. Miller 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when Gottfried, a prisoner in a federal prison, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Pennsylvania. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. 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 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 be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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 in a federal prison. 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 government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gottfried v. Miller, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason why it cannot be done so. In this case, he noted that the contract did not contain any language which prohibited or restricted assignment of rights under it; therefore, he believed that Miller had every right to assign his interest in the property as he saw fit. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there were restrictions on assignment contained within the agreement itself, they could not have been used by Gottfried since she was unaware of them at the time she accepted her husband's transfer of title and possession of land from Miller. As such, Justice Field concluded that both parties should have been held accountable for their respective obligations under their agreement and urged reversal of judgment against Miller due to lack of consideration given for his conveyance deed when transferring ownership over land back into Gottfried’s name