Whiteley v. Kirby is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the principle of habeas corpus. The case involved a dispute between two men, Whiteley and Kirby, over the ownership of a horse. Whiteley had purchased the horse from Kirby, but Kirby later claimed that the horse had been stolen from him and demanded its return. Whiteley refused, and Kirby sought a writ of habeas corpus from the court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Whiteley, holding that the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to determine the ownership of a horse. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was intended to protect the liberty of individuals, not to settle disputes over property. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to determine the ownership of a horse because the horse was not a person and thus could not be subject to the writ. The decision in Whiteley v. Kirby established the principle that the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to settle disputes over property. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important part of the American legal system today.

In Whiteley v. Kirby, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a conviction of an individual for treason could be overturned due to irregularities in the grand jury selection process. The majority opinion held that since there was no proof of prejudice against the defendant, and since he had been convicted by a petit jury after being indicted by a legally constituted grand jury, his conviction should stand. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that it violated fundamental principles of justice; and secondly, that it undermined public confidence in the judicial system. He argued that even if there were no direct evidence of prejudice against the defendant or any other irregularity during trial proceedings themselves (which he believed there may have been), allowing such an irregularly selected grand jury to indict someone for treason would still constitute injustice as well as undermine public trust in courts and juries alike.