Atherton v. Fowler was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The case involved a dispute between the state of New York and the United States government over the ownership of a parcel of land in New York. The state of New York sought to compel the United States government to issue a patent for the land, but the government refused. The state of New York then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel the government to issue the patent. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy available only to compel a state officer to perform a duty, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the United States government to issue a patent for the land in question. The Court's decision in Atherton v. Fowler established that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the issue of whether a state court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Atherton v. Fowler, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is considered fair or equitable. The contract at issue provided for payment of interest on overdue payments; however, the majority held that this provision could not be enforced because it violated public policy. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued that such contracts were enforceable under existing law as long as they did not violate any statute or constitutional provision. Furthermore, he noted that if courts refused to enforce contractual provisions simply because they deemed them unfair or inequitable then there would be no incentive for parties to negotiate reasonable agreements since their terms could always later be disregarded by a court of law.