Chickaming v. Carpenter 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, Chickaming, sought to compel the defendant, Carpenter, to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The plaintiff argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of mandamus because the federal court had failed to act on a case that had been pending before it for some time. The defendant argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court further held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the federal court to act on a case that had been pending before it for some time. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus and that the plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chickaming v. Carpenter, arguing that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an unjust result for both parties. He argued that under Ohio state law, which governed this case, there was no legal basis to grant relief to either party as they had not been able to prove their respective claims. The majority had found that one of the parties should be granted relief based on equitable principles; however, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion because he believed it would lead to inequitable results if applied across all similar cases. Furthermore, he noted that while equity could provide some assistance in certain circumstances where justice may otherwise fail due to technicalities or other issues beyond a court's control; however, such situations were not present here and thus did not warrant any interference from equity by way of granting relief when none is legally available according to established precedent and statutory laws.