Noble v. Hammond is a Supreme Court case from 1821 that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal marshal. The case arose when a federal marshal arrested a man named Noble on a charge of treason against the United States. Noble was held in custody by the marshal, and his family sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court in order to secure his release. The state court issued the writ, but the marshal refused to obey it. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was exclusively vested in the federal government. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was an inherent part of the federal government's power to enforce the laws of the United States, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with this power. The Court also noted that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was a fundamental right of citizens, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right.

In the case of Noble v. Hammond, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied existing law. He noted that under California's Civil Code, an individual who has been wrongfully deprived of property is entitled to compensation for any damages suffered as a result. In this particular case, Noble was wrongfully denied access to his land by Hammond and thus should be compensated for any losses incurred due to this deprivation. Furthermore, Field argued that even if there had been no prior agreement between the parties regarding ownership rights over the land in question, Noble still would have been entitled to some form of compensation since it was clear from all evidence presented at trial that he had acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to obtain title or possession of said property before being unlawfully excluded by Hammond. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while it may not have been possible for Noble to establish full legal title over the disputed land due its uncertain origin and lack of documentation surrounding its acquisition; nevertheless he deserved some form of recompense given his long-standing use and occupation thereof prior to being barred from accessing it by Hammond’s actions