Cooper & Another v. Schlesinger & Another 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 officer. The case involved two parties, Cooper and Schlesinger, who were both officers of the United States Navy. Cooper had been appointed to the position of Paymaster in the Navy, while Schlesinger had been appointed to the position of Chief Clerk. The dispute arose when Cooper attempted to exercise his authority as Paymaster and Schlesinger refused to comply with his orders. Cooper then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court, which was granted. Schlesinger then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to federal officers, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ to a federal officer. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ.

In Cooper & Another v. Schlesinger & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of the parties against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there was no consideration for either party to enforce such an agreement. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that partial performance should be sufficient consideration to support enforcement of a contract in certain circumstances. He reasoned that if both parties had substantially complied with their obligations under the contract prior to any breach or dispute arising, then they should still have recourse even if full performance has yet to occur. In his view, allowing contracts which are partially performed but not fully completed would encourage people to fulfill their contractual duties without fear of being unable to recover damages when disputes arise due to non-performance by another party involved in the agreement.