Watts v. Camors & Another 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, William Watts, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Watts sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Watts v. Camors & Another established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

In the case of Watts v. Camors & Another, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was too broad and could have far-reaching implications for other cases involving similar facts. He noted that while it is true that an agreement to pay money on demand may be enforced by law, this does not necessarily mean that all such agreements are enforceable. In particular, he pointed out that there were several factors in this case which should have been taken into consideration before deciding whether or not to enforce the agreement at issue. These included the fact that one party had already received payment from another source and thus did not need to rely on any promise made by either of the parties involved in this dispute; as well as evidence suggesting fraud or duress on behalf of one of those parties when entering into said agreement. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for more careful consideration when determining whether or not an agreement should be enforced under similar circumstances going forward.