Chapin v. Streeter 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 mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Chapin, sought to compel the defendant, Streeter, to appear in a state court to answer a complaint. Streeter argued that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a 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 the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court held that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction and the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chapin v. Streeter, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that under existing law, courts had no authority to set aside an executor's sale of real estate on the basis of fraud or mistake unless it could be proven that such fraud or mistake had been committed by someone acting as agent for the executor. In this case, there was no evidence presented which showed any fraudulent conduct on behalf of anyone connected with the executor; thus, Justice Field concluded that there was no legal basis for setting aside the sale. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to set aside sales based solely upon allegations made by one party without requiring proof from another party then it would open up a wide range of potential abuses and create uncertainty in property transactions across all states.