Stone v. Towne et al. 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 federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, William Stone, was arrested by federal officers in the state of California and taken into federal custody. Stone then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that he was being held in federal custody without due process of law. The state court granted the writ and ordered the federal officers to produce Stone before the court. The federal officers refused to comply with the order, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody. The case then went to the Supreme Court, which held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exercise of that right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stone v. Towne et al., arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that, under existing law, a party who had been wrongfully deprived of their property could not be held liable for damages caused by another person taking possession of it. In this case, he noted that Towne had taken possession of Stone's land without any legal authority or right to do so; thus, if anyone should be held responsible for any damage done while in possession of the land it should have been Towne himself rather than Stone. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there were some legal basis on which to hold Stone liable for damages caused by someone else taking his property unlawfully from him then such liability would only arise after an action was brought against him and judgment rendered against him - something which did not occur here since no suit was ever filed against Stone at all. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that holding a party like Stone liable when they are innocent victims is unjust and contrary to established principles of justice as well as prior decisions made by the court itself.