In Hayden v. Manning, 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, Hayden, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving a sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. 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 court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The Court held 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 court's judgment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Manning, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them and cannot be broken by either party without consequences. In this case, he believed that Mr. Manning had breached his contract with Mr. Hayden when he failed to pay him for services rendered as agreed upon in their agreement; therefore, Justice Field argued that Mr. Hayden was entitled to damages from Mr. Manning for breach of contract under California law at the time of the dispute (1880). Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were any ambiguities or uncertainties regarding what exactly constituted "services" according to their agreement - which would have been up to a jury trial - it did not matter because no such issues were raised before or during trial proceedings; thus, it could not serve as grounds for reversing an already established verdict against defendant Manning due to lack of evidence presented on said issue(s).