In County of Clay v. Society for Savings, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a national bank. The Society for Savings, a national bank, had been ordered by the state court to pay a debt to the County of Clay. The Society for Savings argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus because the bank was a national bank and the state court did not have jurisdiction over it. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of mandamus was a power that was reserved to the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction over the national bank, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the County of Clay. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, and that the writ was therefore invalid. The Court also noted that the state court should have sought a different remedy for the County of Clay, such as a suit in equity.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in County of Clay v. Society for Savings, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is an agreement by both sides to modify it or if one party has been misled into signing it due to fraud or misrepresentation. In this case, he noted that no such circumstances existed and thus the original contract should have been upheld. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there had been some ambiguity in the language of the contract, any reasonable interpretation would lead to upholding its terms rather than invalidating them as done by his colleagues on the bench. Finally, he concluded with a strong rebuke against what he saw as judicial activism from his fellow justices who were ignoring established legal precedent in order to reach their desired outcome instead of following existing law faithfully and objectively.