Bean & Another v. Patterson & Another 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 plaintiffs, Bean and another, sought to compel the defendants, Patterson and another, to appear in a state court to answer a complaint. The defendants argued that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a 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. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court held that the state court could not compel the defendants to appear in the state court to answer the complaint. 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.

In Bean & Another v. Patterson & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment rendered in favor of two plaintiffs against one defendant should be enforced by the other defendant who had not been present at trial. The majority opinion held that it could not be so enforced because there had been no personal service on him and he did not appear to have any knowledge of the proceedings or an opportunity to defend himself. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that due process does not require personal service when notice is provided through publication as long as it is reasonably calculated to give actual notice under all circumstances. He further argued that since both defendants were jointly liable for the debt, they should both be bound by its adjudication regardless of their presence or lack thereof during trial proceedings.