In the case of Wing v. Anthony, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The petitioner, Wing, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal, and he had been convicted of a crime in the state of New York. Wing had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, but the United States Marshal had refused to obey the writ. 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exercise of that right. The Court's decision in Wing v. Anthony established that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the principle that the federal government has exclusive authority over the detention of prisoners.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wing v. Anthony, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a contract for personal services is not assignable under any circumstances, as it involves an agreement between two parties based on trust and confidence which cannot be transferred to another party without destroying its value. Furthermore, he noted that contracts of this nature are generally considered non-assignable by courts across the country due to their unique characteristics. Additionally, Justice Field stated that even if such a contract were assignable in some cases, there was no evidence presented in this case indicating an intent by either party to make such an assignment or transfer of rights from one person to another. As such, he concluded that the lower court's ruling should have been affirmed instead of reversed by the Supreme Court majority opinion.