Arthur v. Morrison 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, Arthur, sought to compel the defendant, Morrison, to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The plaintiff argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the federal court had failed to act on a case that had been pending before it for several years. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the federal court was a separate and distinct court from the state court, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court further held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court because the federal court was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Arthur v. Morrison, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract is an agreement between two parties which creates obligations on each side, and if one party fails to fulfill their obligation then they are liable for damages. In this case, he believed that Morrison had failed to perform his contractual duties by not delivering goods as promised and should be held responsible for any losses suffered by Arthur due to his breach of contract. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even though there may have been some ambiguity in the language of the contract itself, it did not absolve Morrison from liability since he had accepted payment without raising any objections at the time or making any attempts to clarify what was expected of him under its terms. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating that while courts must interpret contracts according to their plain meaning when possible; where such interpretation leads them into injustice or absurdity they should instead look towards equity principles so as not cause harm or injury upon either party involved in a dispute over its terms