Wright v. Tebbitts was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case involved a prisoner, William Wright, who was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Wright had been convicted of a crime in the state of Indiana and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. Wright sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court in Ohio, arguing that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 issue such a writ. The Court further held that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wright v. Tebbits, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has been misled by false representations made by the other party. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence to suggest that either party had acted fraudulently or with malicious intent when entering into their agreement; therefore, it should not have been set aside simply because one of them had relied upon inaccurate information provided by the other. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that even if such misrepresentations were found to exist in this particular instance, they would only serve as grounds for damages rather than voiding an entire contract altogether.