Graham v. Norton 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Graham, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Graham 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 prerogative, 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 imprison individuals. 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 prerogative, 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 imprison individuals.

In Graham v. Norton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by two individuals in favor of a third party was valid and enforceable under state law. The majority opinion held that it was not, as the deed did not meet all the requirements for such an instrument under state law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that even though there were some technical deficiencies in the document itself, these should be disregarded because they had no bearing on its validity or enforceability; rather than invalidating it outright due to minor errors or omissions, he suggested that any issues with regard to formality could have been addressed through judicial interpretation and amendment if necessary. Furthermore, he noted that both parties had acted upon their agreement as evidenced by subsequent actions taken after execution of the deed; thus denying them relief would be unjust and contrary to public policy considerations which favored upholding contracts made in good faith between consenting adults whenever possible.