Wilkins v. Ellett, Administrator was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Wilkins, was held in federal custody in the state of Virginia. Wilkins sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The federal government then 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 in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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 this right. 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 in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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 this right.

In Wilkins v. Ellett, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an administrator of an estate in which the decedent owned land located in two different states. The majority opinion held that since the decedent's will provided for his property to be divided among his heirs according to their respective interests, and since those interests were determined by laws of each state where he owned land, then it followed that both states must have concurrent jurisdiction over any dispute arising from such division. Justice Field dissented on this point arguing that while it may be true that both states have some interest in how the estate is distributed due to its presence within their borders, only one state should possess exclusive authority over matters concerning distribution as this would provide greater certainty and stability when dealing with estates situated across multiple jurisdictions. He further argued that allowing concurrent jurisdiction could lead to conflicting decisions between courts of different states regarding who has title or possession of certain assets belonging to an estate thus creating confusion and uncertainty for all parties involved.