Mackall v. Richards 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 a prisoner, Mackall, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Mackall sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Maryland, where he was originally convicted. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and that the prisoner must seek relief from the federal court.

In the case of Mackall v. Richards, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to properly consider and apply established legal principles. He noted that under existing law, when an individual has been wrongfully deprived of property by another person, they are entitled to recover damages for their loss from the party responsible. In this case, it was undisputed that Mackall had been wrongfully deprived of his property; however, the majority held that because Richards did not have actual knowledge or intent to deprive him of his rights at the time she took possession of it (which was prior to her marriage), she could not be held liable for any resulting losses suffered by Mackall. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that since Richards' husband had taken possession after their marriage and with full knowledge as well as intent to deprive Mackall's right thereto, both parties should be jointly liable for any damages sustained by him due to their wrongful actions.