Teal v. Walker was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, William Teal, was held in federal custody in the state of Georgia. Teal sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The United States government then 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in TEAL v. WALKER, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that under California law, a married woman had an absolute right to her separate property; thus, when Mrs. Teal received money from her father's estate as part of his will, it became hers alone and could not be taken away by Mr. Teal or anyone else without due process of law. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some ambiguity in California state laws regarding this issue at the time of Mrs. Teal's death (which he did not believe there was), then federal common-law principles should have been applied instead which would have allowed for Mrs. Teal to retain ownership over her separate property regardless of any ambiguities in state laws on the matter at hand since she had already acquired title prior to any such ambiguities arising during probate proceedings after her death.. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing Mr Walker access to these funds violated fundamental rights protected by both federal and state constitutions and therefore should be overturned on appeal