Hitchcock v. Buchanan was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 the petitioner, William Hitchcock, was convicted of a federal crime and sentenced to imprisonment in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. Hitchcock then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court of Kansas, seeking to be released from federal custody. 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 power to issue such writs was vested exclusively in the federal courts, and that the state court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison its own citizens. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right of citizens, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect that right. 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 power to issue such writs was vested exclusively in the federal courts, and that the state court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison its own citizens.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hitchcock v. Buchanan, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a crucial point of law. He argued that under the terms of an 1851 contract between two parties, one party was entitled to receive payment for certain services rendered and goods provided over a period of time. The other party had refused to pay on multiple occasions, leading them to file suit against each other in order to settle their dispute. Justice Field argued that while it may have been true that there were some discrepancies with regards to how much money was owed by one side or another, this did not negate the fact that both sides were still bound by their contractual agreement and thus should be held liable for any payments due as per its terms. As such, he concluded that even though there may have been some minor errors made during negotiations or calculations regarding what exactly was owed at any given time, these issues should not prevent either side from fulfilling their obligations according to said contract's provisions - which is why he dissented from his colleagues' ruling in favor of neither party being responsible for making payment on account of those discrepancies alone.