Schell v. Dodge 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Schell, was held in a federal prison in New York and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ and ordered the federal prison to release Schell. 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 the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right and that the state court should not interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Schell v. Dodge established 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 decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that the federal government had the power to protect.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Schell v. Dodge, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake, which he did not see present in this case. Furthermore, he noted that while it may have been reasonable for one party to assume they had more time than what was stated in the contract due to their prior dealings with each other, such an assumption could not override what was actually agreed upon by both parties at the time of signing. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if either party felt they were being treated unfairly under the terms of a contract then they should seek legal redress before any action is taken on their part instead of relying on assumptions made after-the-fact about how much time would be allowed for performance.