In Williams v. Hagood, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Williams, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving a sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with a federal conviction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with a federal conviction. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case, and that the petitioner's conviction must stand. This decision established that state courts do not have the power to interfere with federal convictions, and that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for federal prisoners.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Williams v. Hagood, arguing that the majority had misapplied a prior ruling of the Supreme Court and failed to consider relevant evidence from state law. He argued that under South Carolina's laws, which were applicable to this case, an executor was not liable for debts incurred by his predecessor unless he accepted them or assumed responsibility for them. In this particular case, there was no evidence that either of these conditions had been met; thus Justice Field concluded that it would be unjust to hold Williams responsible for Hagood's debt. Furthermore, he noted that even if such liability did exist under South Carolina law (which he believed it did not), then any judgment against Williams should have been limited only to those assets inherited from Hagood rather than all of his property as ordered by the court below.