Gage v. Carraher 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, Gage, sought to have the defendant, Carraher, removed from his position as a federal court judge. Gage argued that Carraher had acted in a manner that was prejudicial to the interests of the United States and that he should be removed from office. 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 writ of mandamus was a remedy that was available only to the federal courts and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to review the actions of a federal court judge. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court and that the plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gage v. Carraher, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether or not it has been approved by a court. In this case, he noted that there had been an agreement between Gage and Carraher to transfer certain property rights from one to another for consideration; however, because no court order had been issued approving the transaction at the time of its execution, it could not be enforced against either party. Justice Field further argued that even if such an approval were necessary for enforcement purposes under state law (which he did not believe was true), then any subsequent action taken by either party which would indicate their acceptance of the terms agreed upon would render those terms enforceable without requiring judicial approval first. Therefore, since neither party ever repudiated their agreement after executing it - thus indicating they accepted its terms - Justice Field believed they should have both been held liable according to its provisions as originally written