Cantrell & Another v. Wallick was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a new trial in a case that had already been decided by a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate. The plaintiff, Cantrell, had sued the defendant, Wallick, in a state court for breach of contract. The state court found in favor of Cantrell and awarded him damages. Wallick then appealed the decision to a federal court, which affirmed the state court's decision. Wallick then sought a new trial in the state court, arguing that the federal court had made a mistake in its decision. The state court granted the new trial, and Cantrell appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to grant a new trial in a case that had already been decided by a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was bound by the decision of the federal court and could not grant a new trial. The Court also noted that the state court had no authority to review the decision of the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court's decision to grant a new trial was in error and reversed the decision.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cantrell & Another v. Wallick, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a state court had no jurisdiction to hear a case involving federal law, as it would interfere with Congress' exclusive power to regulate commerce between states. Furthermore, he stated that even if there were some ambiguity regarding whether or not the state court had jurisdiction over such matters, any doubts should have been resolved in favor of upholding Congress' authority under Article I of the Constitution. Additionally, Justice Field noted that while an individual may choose which forum they wish to litigate their claims in - either federal or state courts - this does not mean they can bring suit against another party without first obtaining permission from both forums; thus making it impossible for them to sue someone twice on similar grounds before different tribunals at once. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing individuals to do so would create confusion and uncertainty within our legal system and ultimately undermine its integrity by disregarding established principles of law set forth by Congress itself.