Wolf v. Stix was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Wolf, was held in a federal prison in New York and sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state court. The state court issued 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 the writ of habeas corpus. 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 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 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 held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

In Wolf v. Stix, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties who were citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity among its parties and thus could not exercise federal judicial power under Article III of the Constitution. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had granted authority to state courts in such cases by enacting legislation which provided for concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts when there was no diversity among the litigants. He argued further that even if Congress had not done so, then Article III would still allow for such concurrent jurisdiction as long as it did not conflict with any other constitutional provision or congressional act. In conclusion, he argued that since neither condition applied in this case, then the state court should be allowed to hear and decide upon it according to its own laws and procedures without interference from federal authorities.