Latham's and Deming's Appeals 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 federal custody. The case was brought by two prisoners, Latham and Deming, who were held in federal custody in the state of New York. The state court had issued a writ of habeas corpus to the federal prison, ordering the release of the prisoners. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over federal prisoners. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the federal government, holding that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over federal prisoners, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the right to protect its prisoners from interference by the states.

In Latham's and Deming's Appeals, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced. The majority of justices held that it could not, as the performance of one party did not constitute consideration for the other party’s promise to perform. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on several grounds. He argued that when part-performance has occurred in good faith and is accepted by both parties without objection or reservation, then there is sufficient consideration to support an enforceable contract even if all terms have yet to be fulfilled. Additionally, he noted that allowing such contracts would encourage people to fulfill their promises rather than break them due to lack of legal protection; thus upholding public policy interests in favor of enforcing partial performances where appropriate.