Wolverton v. Nichols 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, Wolverton, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Wolverton sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted 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 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 remedy, 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 remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Wolverton v. Nichols established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that can only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wolverton v. Nichols, arguing that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been approved by any third party or not. Furthermore, he stated that if one party breaches their agreement then they are liable for damages to the other party as a result of such breach. In this case, Justice Field believed that there had been an enforceable contract between Wolverton and Nichols which provided for payment from Nichols to Wolverton upon completion of certain services rendered by him; therefore when Nichols failed to make such payments he was liable for damages resulting from his breach of contract. As such, Justice Field concluded that the judgment against Nichol’s should have been affirmed rather than reversed as decided by the majority opinion in this case.