Wells & Others v. Wilkins 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 person who was being held in custody by a federal officer. The case involved a dispute between the United States Marshal and the state court of Arkansas. The Marshal had arrested a man named Wilkins and was holding him in custody in Arkansas. The state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to the Marshal, ordering him to bring Wilkins before the court. The Marshal refused to comply, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain individuals. 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. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and that the Marshal was not required to comply with the writ.

In Wells & Others v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court's decision in a case involving land titles. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority over cases originating in federal courts. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had given states concurrent jurisdiction over such matters and thus the state court should be allowed to hear appeals from decisions of lower federal courts on issues related to land titles. He argued further that allowing this would provide greater access for litigants who could not afford to take their cases all the way up through multiple levels of appellate review within the federal system and would also help ensure uniformity between different states' laws regarding property rights by providing additional opportunities for judicial review at both state and national levels.