In re Sherman was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Sherman, was arrested in the state of New York and held in federal custody. The state court issued a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the federal authorities to produce Sherman in court. The federal authorities refused to comply, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exercise of 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner.

In re Sherman was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in which the court had to decide whether or not an individual could be held liable for debts incurred by another person. The majority opinion of the court found that, under certain circumstances, an individual can indeed be held responsible for someone else's debt. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that no one should ever be made liable for another person’s debt without their express consent. He reasoned that such a ruling would create too much uncertainty and confusion as it would allow creditors to hold individuals accountable even if they were unaware of any agreement between themselves and the debtor. Furthermore, he believed it was unfair to make people pay off debts when they did not benefit from them in any way whatsoever. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that holding individuals responsible for other people’s debts is unjustified unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise.