In Bowen v. Chase, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Bowen, sought to have a writ of mandamus issued by the state court to the federal court in order to compel the latter to hear a case that Bowen had filed in the 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 jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy that could only be issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court further held that the state court's attempt to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court was an unconstitutional interference with the federal court's jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the state court's action was invalid and that Bowen's case should be heard in the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bowen v. Chase, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because one of them had acted fraudulently or negligently; rather, he contended that it is up to the courts to decide whether such an act has occurred and what remedy should be provided if so. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there were no allegations of fraud or negligence on behalf of either party in this case, making it unnecessary for the court to consider any remedies at all. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that contracts are binding unless they have been proven fraudulent or negligent by clear evidence presented before a court of law.