Albright v. Teas 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 mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Albright, sought to compel the defendant, Teas, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. Albright argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ, while Teas argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the jurisdiction to issue the writ because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and thus, the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the jurisdiction to issue the writ because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and thus, the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Albright v. Teas, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that under Texas law, a married woman had no right to own property separate from her husband; thus, when she sold land without his consent or knowledge, it was not legally binding. Furthermore, he noted that if a wife could sell land without her husband's permission or knowledge then any third party who purchased such land would be taking an enormous risk as they would have no assurance of title until after the death of either spouse. In conclusion Justice Field stated that while it may seem unfair for husbands to retain control over their wives' property rights during marriage this is what has been established by state law and should remain so unless changed by legislative action rather than judicial decree.