In Hartranft v. Winters, 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 petitioner, Hartranft, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving his sentence in a state prison. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Hartranft released from prison. 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 is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with a federal conviction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who have been convicted in a federal court. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Hartranft. The Court's decision in Hartranft v. Winters established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners who have been convicted in a federal court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hartranft v. Winters, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a "confusion of titles" if allowed to stand. He argued that under Pennsylvania law, which governed this case, an executor had no authority or power over real estate owned by his testator until he was appointed as such by a court order; thus any deed executed prior to appointment could not be validly conveyed. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if it were possible for an executor-designate (one who has been named but not yet appointed) to convey title before being officially appointed as such, there is nothing in the record indicating that Hartranft ever accepted his designation or acted upon it in any way whatsoever - making him ineligible for consideration as an effective grantee of Winters' land. Finally, Justice Field concluded with a warning against allowing future cases like this one: "[I]f we should hold otherwise...we shall open wide the door for frauds on innocent purchasers."