The D. R. Martin case 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, D. R. Martin, was held in a federal prison in the state of Louisiana. Martin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ and ordered the federal prison to release Martin. The federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing 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 Supreme Court agreed with the federal government, ruling 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 power, 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 federal government had the power to protect this right.

In the case of D.R. Martin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made orally and not in writing could be enforced by law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were valid and enforceable under state laws, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that it violated public policy as well as federal statutes which required certain types of agreements to be in writing before they could be legally binding. He argued that allowing oral contracts would lead to fraud and abuse since there would no longer be any way for either party involved to prove what terms had actually been agreed upon or if those terms had even changed over time. Furthermore, he noted how written documents provided evidence of an agreement's existence while also providing protection against future disputes due to their clarity regarding all relevant details concerning said agreement. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that upholding oral contracts ran counter both common sense and existing legislation meant specifically for protecting individuals from potential harm caused by verbal agreements lacking proper documentation