Werner v. King 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, John Werner, was held in a federal prison in the state of Maryland. Werner 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. The Court's decision in Werner v. King established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Werner v. King, a case concerning whether or not an individual had the right to bring suit against another for damages caused by negligence. Justice Field argued that individuals should have the right to sue each other for damages caused by negligence and that this was supported by common law precedent as well as public policy considerations. He noted that allowing such suits would provide incentives for people to be more careful and responsible when dealing with others' property, which would ultimately benefit society at large. Furthermore, he argued that denying individuals their rights of action could lead to injustice since it might prevent them from recovering losses they suffered due to someone else's carelessness or recklessness. In conclusion, Justice Field believed strongly in protecting individuals' rights of action against those who negligently cause harm and damage through their actions or omissions.