Smith v. Field 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, Smith, was held in a federal prison in the state of California. Smith 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 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. 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 Smith v. Field, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that under the terms of a contract between two parties, one party could not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrongs or negligence by claiming damages from another party for breach of contract when they had themselves failed to fulfill their obligations under said agreement. In this case, he noted that Smith had failed to pay his debt on time as agreed upon in the original contract and thus should not have been able to recover any damages from Field for failing to deliver goods as promised due to Smith's failure first. Justice Field concluded by stating that it would be unjust if such a result were allowed since it would allow someone who has violated an agreement with another person or entity can still benefit financially from doing so at the expense of those who did abide by its terms.