Farmers' Loan and Trust Company v. Waterman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enjoin a federal court from hearing a case. The case involved a dispute between the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company and Waterman, a stockholder of the company. Waterman had filed a suit in a state court against the company, seeking to enjoin it from proceeding with a foreclosure action in a federal court. The state court granted the injunction, and the company appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. The Court reasoned that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of a federal court, and that the state court's injunction was an attempt to do just that. The Court further held that the state court's injunction was an unconstitutional interference with the federal court's jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case, and that the state court's injunction was an unconstitutional interference with the federal court's jurisdiction.

In the case of Farmers' Loan and Trust Company v. Waterman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a foreign corporation against citizens of another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, states are required to give full faith and credit to judgments rendered in other states’ courts; therefore, he believed that if a judgment is validly entered in one state’s court then all other states must recognize it as well. Furthermore, he noted that Congress has enacted legislation which grants federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving foreign corporations suing citizens of different states; thus allowing them access to justice without having their rights limited by jurisdictional boundaries set forth by individual states. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that denying these parties access to justice would be contrary both to constitutional principles as well as congressional intent regarding diversity suits between citizens of different States or between U.S Citizens and Foreign Corporations