Lancaster v. Collins 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 held in federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Lancaster, was arrested and held in federal custody in the state of Texas. Lancaster sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the state court granted. The federal government then 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal prerogative, 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 is a fundamental right, and that the federal government has the exclusive power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Lancaster v. Collins established that the state court does not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that the federal government has exclusive authority over matters involving federal prisoners.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lancaster v. Collins, arguing that the majority decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them unless it is modified or rescinded by mutual agreement, which had not occurred in this case. The defendant had agreed to pay for goods received from the plaintiff but failed to do so; as such, Justice Field believed that there was no basis for denying recovery of damages due under the contract. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some ambiguity surrounding whether payment would be made with cash or notes (as alleged by the defendant), any reasonable interpretation of their agreement would have been satisfied when either form of payment was offered and refused by plaintiff's agent at delivery time. Thus, Justice Field concluded that since all conditions necessary for performance were met and no modification or rescission occurred prior to breach, judgment should have been entered against defendant in favor of plaintiff for full amount claimed plus interest accrued during pendency of suit.