Hall et al. v. Weare 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 a federal prison. The case arose when the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison in the state of New York. The prisoner, Weare, had been convicted of a federal crime and was being held in a federal prison. The state court argued that it had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner was being held in the state. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state court and 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 issue the writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. This decision was important in establishing the limits of state court authority in relation to federal powers.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hall et al. v. Weare, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a state court had no jurisdiction over an Indian tribe or its members, as they were not subject to state law unless Congress specifically authorized it. Furthermore, he noted that even if such authority existed, this case did not involve any issue of federal law and thus should have been decided by a state court rather than the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, Justice Field argued that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any wrongdoing on behalf of either party; therefore, he believed it would be unjust for one side to prevail over another without sufficient proof being provided in support of their claims. Finally, he concluded his dissent by stating that while tribal sovereignty must be respected and upheld when dealing with matters concerning Indians living within a particular territory or reservation boundaries set forth by Congress - this case did not fall into those categories since neither party resided on tribal land nor involved issues related thereto - making it inappropriate for resolution before a federal tribunal instead of through local courts where applicable laws could be applied properly according to established precedents already established therein