Morrow v. Whitney 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 person who was being held in custody by a private individual. The case arose when the plaintiff, Morrow, was arrested by a private individual and held in custody without a warrant. Morrow then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, seeking to be released from custody. The defendant, Whitney, argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the arrest was made by a private individual. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied by a private individual. The Court further held that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the arrest was made without a warrant and the plaintiff was being held in custody without due process of law. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the defendant to release the plaintiff from custody.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Morrow v. Whitney, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of California law. He argued that under California law, a contract to sell real estate could not be enforced unless it was in writing and signed by both parties; however, this case involved an oral agreement between two parties for the sale of land which had been partially performed. Justice Field maintained that since part performance had occurred before any written document existed, there should have been no dispute as to whether or not an enforceable contract existed between them. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some doubt about whether or not an enforceable contract existed at all times during their dealings with each other, then they should still be held liable due to their partial performance of it prior to its being reduced into writing and signed by both parties. In conclusion Justice Field believed that since part performance had already taken place before any written document was created or signed by either party then they should have been found liable for breach of contract according to California law and thus his dissent from the majority opinion