In Salomons v. Graham, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Salomons, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving his sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. 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 court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment. The Court's decision in Salomons v. Graham established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners who have been convicted in federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Salomons v. Graham, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether one party has acted in bad faith or not. In this case, he noted that there had been no fraud or misrepresentation on either side; rather, it was simply a matter of one party changing their mind after having already agreed upon certain terms with another party. As such, Justice Field believed that the contract should have been enforced as written and any damages resulting from its breach should have been awarded accordingly. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that if contracts were allowed to be broken without consequence then commerce itself would suffer greatly due to lack of trust among those engaging in business transactions with each other.