Atchison v. Peterson 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, Atchison, sought to compel the defendant, Peterson, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska. Atchison argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ, while Peterson 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 power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction and a court of limited jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Atchison v. Peterson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or not. In this case, he noted that there was an agreement between Atchison and Peterson for the sale of land which included a clause stating that if payment were not made within one year from date of purchase then title would revert back to Atchison without any further action being taken by him. The majority had held otherwise despite this clear language in the contract; Justice Field believed this interpretation undermined contracts as well as property rights more generally since purchasers could no longer rely on their agreements with sellers being honored when they paid late or failed to pay at all.