Boley v. Griswold 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 error to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Boley, filed a suit in a state court against the defendant, Griswold, for the collection of a debt. The state court issued a writ of error to the federal court, which Griswold argued was an unconstitutional exercise of power. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to review the decision of the federal court. The Court further held that the writ of error was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the state court. The Court's decision in Boley v. Griswold established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of error to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state court relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Boley v. Griswold, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of a clause in an 1851 California statute. The clause stated that "all persons who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years since January 1st, 1850" were entitled to vote in elections held after July 4th, 1851. The majority interpreted this as granting voting rights only to those individuals who had reached 21 by July 4th; however Justice Field argued that it should be read more broadly and include all individuals over 21 regardless of when they turned 21 during or after 1850. He reasoned that if such a narrow interpretation was adopted then no one would ever become eligible for voting until their birthdays fell on or before July 4th each year - which he believed could not have been intended by lawmakers when drafting the statute. Therefore he concluded that any individual over 21 should be allowed to vote regardless of when they became eligible under state law and urged his colleagues on the Court to reverse their decision accordingly.