Hoffheins v. Russell 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 the petitioner, Hoffheins, was convicted of a crime in the state of Ohio and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a federal prison. Hoffheins then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Hoffheins to be released from federal custody. The United States Supreme Court, however, 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 remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court further held that the state court's order was void and that Hoffheins must remain in federal custody.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hoffheins v. Russell, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted a contract between two parties. The contract stated that if either party failed to fulfill their obligations under it, then they would be liable for damages and costs incurred by the other party as a result of such breach. In this case, Hoffheins had breached his obligation to pay rent on time and was thus liable for damages resulting from Russell's inability to collect said rent due to Hoffhein's failure. However, Justice Field argued that while Hoffman may have been liable for any damage caused by his breach of contract, he should not be held responsible for all costs associated with collecting said debt since those were not explicitly mentioned in the agreement itself. He further argued that even though Hoffman was legally obligated to pay back what he owed according to the terms of their agreement, there is no legal basis upon which one can hold him accountable for additional expenses related thereto beyond what was agreed upon initially in writing between both parties involved