Hinchman v. Lincoln 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, Hinchman, was held in a federal prison in Illinois and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. 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 the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Hinchman v. Lincoln 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 idea that the federal government has the ultimate authority to protect the rights of individuals held in federal prisons.

In Hinchman v. Lincoln, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a party could be held liable for damages caused by an employee who had been hired to perform certain duties and then acted outside of those duties in causing damage. The majority opinion found that the employer could not be held liable because they were unaware of any wrongdoing on behalf of their employee and thus did not have knowledge or control over his actions. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that employers should bear some responsibility for their employees’ wrongful acts even if they are unaware of them at the time. He argued that when employers hire someone to do a job, it is reasonable to assume that person will act within the scope of what has been agreed upon between both parties; therefore, if something goes wrong due to an employee acting outside those bounds then it is only fair for employers to take responsibility as well as face potential liability for such occurrences.