Wheeler v. Sedgwick 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, Wheeler, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Wheeler sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 merits of the underlying conviction. The Court's decision in Wheeler v. Sedgwick 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 remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wheeler v. Sedgwick, arguing that the majority's interpretation of the contract between Wheeler and Sedgwick was too narrow. He argued that while it may be true that a literal reading of the contract would not entitle Wheeler to recover damages for his losses, this did not mean he should be denied relief altogether. Instead, Justice Field suggested looking at other evidence such as custom or usage which could provide additional context to support an interpretation more favorable to Wheeler's claim. In particular, he noted how common it was during this period for parties entering into contracts like these to assume certain obligations beyond those explicitly stated in writing; thus, even if there were no express terms regarding liability for breach of warranty in this case, it still might have been reasonable for both parties to expect some form of compensation when one side failed their contractual duties. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded by urging caution against overly strict interpretations which ignore any extrinsic evidence and instead urged courts consider all available information before making a decision on cases like these.