In Bragg v. Fitch, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Bragg, sought to enjoin the defendant, Fitch, from proceeding with a suit in a federal court. Bragg argued that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction because the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction. The Court reasoned that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's proceedings. The Court further held that the state court's injunction was void because it was issued without jurisdiction. The Court's decision in Bragg v. Fitch established that state courts do not have the authority to interfere with the proceedings of federal courts. The decision also established that state courts cannot issue injunctions against federal courts without jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bragg v. Fitch, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the law and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that a contract was formed between Bragg and Fitch when they agreed on terms for a loan, even though no written document existed at that time. The agreement included an interest rate of 10%, which was later reduced by mutual consent to 8%. Justice Field noted that while it is true there must be some writing or memorandum evidencing such agreements under California law, this requirement does not apply if both parties are present and agree upon all material points orally. In this case, he argued there were sufficient facts presented to show an oral agreement had been made between Bragg and Fitch regarding their loan transaction; thus making any subsequent writings irrelevant as far as enforcing said agreement goes. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that since a valid contract did exist between them prior to any written documents being created or signed off on by either party, then it should have been enforced according to its original terms - including the 10% interest rate originally agreed upon - rather than allowing Fitch's unilateral reduction of said rate without consulting with or obtaining approval from Bragg first