Schmidt v. Cobb 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, Schmidt, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Schmidt sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power 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 prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Schmidt v. Cobb, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted and applied existing law to reach its conclusion. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of any subsequent events or changes in circumstances. In this case, he contended that the contract was clear: it provided for payment of $2 per acre for land purchased by Schmidt from Cobb's father-in-law. The fact that other lands were subsequently sold at higher prices did not change this obligation; if anything, it only served as evidence of how valuable those lands were when they were originally sold by Cobb's father-in-law. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there was no legal precedent supporting the idea that contracts could be voided due to later developments such as inflation or market fluctuations; thus he concluded that enforcing them according to their original terms was both legally sound and fair for all involved parties.