Sweeney et al. v. Lomme 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 the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in the state of Louisiana. The prisoner, Sweeney, had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The state court argued that it had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner was being held in the state. 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 remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to those who were being held in state custody. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sweeney et al. v. Lomme, arguing that the decision of the California Supreme Court should be affirmed and not reversed as was done by a majority of justices on the US Supreme Court. He argued that under California law, when an individual has been wrongfully dispossessed from their land, they are entitled to recover damages for any rents or profits made off it during their absence - even if those who took possession had no knowledge of such wrongful dispossession at the time they did so. Justice Field maintained that this principle is well-established in both common law and equity jurisprudence and should have been applied here; he further noted that there were no special circumstances present which would warrant its non-application in this case either. As such, he concluded his dissent with a call for affirming rather than reversing the judgment below based upon these considerations alone.