White v. Dunbar 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William White, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. White 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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 the rights of individuals. 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 a federal prison. 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 imprison individuals. 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 the rights of individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in White v. Dunbar, a case concerning whether an individual could be held liable for failing to pay taxes on property that had been transferred from another person without consideration. Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent, as well as common sense. He noted that if a transfer of property is made without any form of consideration or payment then it should not be subject to taxation because there has been no gain by either party involved in the transaction. Furthermore, he stated that such transfers are often done out of love or friendship and should not be penalized with taxation simply because they lack monetary compensation between parties involved in the transaction. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that holding someone liable for taxes on a gift would create an unjust burden upon those who receive them and thus should not be allowed under current laws governing tax liability.