Maxwell v. Stewart 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 a prisoner, Maxwell, was held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. Maxwell sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 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 also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Maxwell v. Stewart established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Maxwell v. Stewart, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding unless it can be proven to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation of facts by one party against another. In this case, he believed there was no evidence of any such fraudulent activity on either side; thus, both parties were bound to their agreement as written and could not seek relief from its terms in court. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if the Court allowed for contracts to be broken without proof of fraud or misrepresentation then it would set a dangerous precedent whereby all contracts could potentially become voidable at any time with no legal recourse available for those who had entered into them in good faith.