Hentig v. Page 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 a prisoner, Hentig, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Hentig sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over federal prisoners. Hentig then appealed 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 prerogative, and that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the federal government's authority over federal prisoners. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was in line with the principle of federalism, which holds that the federal government has exclusive authority over matters that are within its jurisdiction. 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 held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the federal government's authority over federal prisoners. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was in line with the principle of federalism, which holds that the federal government has exclusive authority over matters that are within its jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hentig v. Page, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a party cannot acquire title to land by adverse possession unless they have been in exclusive possession of it for twenty years or more; this is true even if there has been an open and notorious occupation of the property during that time period. In this case, he noted, there had only been fifteen years of occupancy prior to suit being filed - thus falling short of the required amount needed for title acquisition through adverse possession. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that while some improvements were made on the property during those fifteen years, they did not constitute sufficient evidence to prove actual ownership as defined by law - which requires both exclusive use and uninterrupted occupancy over a long period of time. As such, he concluded his dissent with a call for reversal based on these facts alone: "The judgment below must therefore be reversed."