Myrick v. Thompson 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Myrick, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Myrick 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 for individuals who were being held in violation of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the power to determine whether the federal government was violating the Constitution. 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 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Myrick v. Thompson, a case concerning whether an individual could be held liable for damages resulting from another person's negligence. He argued that the majority had misconstrued the law and failed to consider relevant precedents when it found that Myrick was not responsible for Thompson’s injuries. Field noted that under common law principles of agency, one who entrusts property or authority to another is liable if they are negligent in their supervision of them; thus, he believed there was sufficient evidence to hold Myrick accountable for his employee’s actions. Furthermore, he pointed out that even though no contract existed between them, this did not absolve either party from liability as long as they were both aware of their respective duties and responsibilities towards each other. Finally, Justice Field concluded by noting how important it is for employers to exercise due care when hiring employees so as to protect themselves against potential legal action stemming from any harm caused by those employees while on duty