Boyce v. Tabb 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, Boyce, sued the defendant, Tabb, in a state court in Virginia. The state court issued a writ of error to the federal court, which the defendant argued was an improper exercise of jurisdiction. 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 judgment of the federal court. The Court further held that the writ of error was void and could not be enforced. The Court's decision in Boyce v. Tabb 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 become an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Boyce v. Tabb, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would create a dangerous new rule of law. He argued that under existing case law, an action for damages could not be maintained against an executor or administrator unless it was based on some act done by them as such; otherwise they were protected from liability because their duty was only to collect and distribute assets according to the will of the deceased. In this case, however, Justice Field noted that there had been no allegation made against either executor or administrator regarding any wrongful acts committed while acting in those capacities; rather, they were being sued for failing to pay a debt owed by their testator prior to his death. As such, he concluded that since neither party had acted wrongfully as an executor or administrator during their tenure in office - which is what gave rise to liability - then no cause of action existed against them and thus summary judgment should have been granted instead of denying it like the majority did here.