Hawley v. Fairbanks and Others 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 a prisoner, Hawley, was held in a federal prison in the state of Maine. Hawley sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 held in a federal prison. 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 government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Hawley v. Fairbanks and Others established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hawley v. Fairbanks and Others, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law to reach their conclusion. He argued that under California law, a mortgage was not extinguished by an assignment of it unless there was some act done which would amount to a surrender or release of it. In this case, he found no such action had been taken as all parties were still claiming rights under the mortgage at issue. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one party did have superior title over another due to an earlier assignment date, they could only enforce their claim against those who held inferior titles; thus any dispute between two parties with equal titles should be settled through equity rather than through legal proceedings like this one. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that since both sides were claiming rights under the same mortgage document and neither side had acted in a manner which would extinguish its claims on said document then each side's respective claims should remain valid until resolved equitably by either party or ordered so by court decree.