Barrow v. Hunton was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Barrow and Hunton, over a contract for the sale of land. Barrow had sued Hunton in a state court, and Hunton had appealed the decision to a federal court. The federal court had affirmed the state court's decision, and Hunton had then sought a writ of error from the state court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of superior jurisdiction to the federal court, and thus did not have the power to review the federal court's decision. The Court also noted that the state court's writ of error was not authorized by any federal statute, and thus could not be used to review the federal court's decision. The Court's decision in Barrow v. Hunton established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of error to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot review the decisions of federal courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Barrow v. Hunton, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to pass legislation regulating private contracts between citizens of different states. Furthermore, he noted that such an interpretation would allow Congress to regulate any contract or agreement made by individuals across state lines without limitation - something which could not have been intended when the Constitution was drafted. Justice Field also pointed out that if this interpretation were accepted it would effectively render all state laws concerning contracts unenforceable within their own borders as they could be superseded by federal law at any time. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing Congress such broad powers over interstate commerce went beyond what was necessary for its regulation and should therefore be rejected by the court.