Gage v. Pumpelly and Others was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Gage, sought an injunction from the state court of California against the defendants, Pumpelly and others, who were involved in a case before the federal court. The state court granted the injunction, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to issue such an injunction, and that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Court further held that the state court's injunction was void and could not be enforced. The Court's decision in Gage v. Pumpelly and Others established that state courts do not have the authority to issue injunctions against federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gage v. Pumpelly and Others, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of California law. He argued that under California law, which had been adopted by Congress when it created the public land system in 1851, miners were allowed to occupy lands for mining purposes without obtaining title from the United States government. The majority opinion held that such occupation did not give rise to any legal rights or interests; however Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and argued instead that miners who occupied lands for mining purposes acquired an equitable interest in those lands as long as they complied with all applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, he noted that even if no legal right or interest arose from such occupancy, it still gave rise to an equitable claim against third parties who interfered with their possession of those lands. Thus he concluded that since Mr. Gage had established his occupancy prior to defendants' interference with his possession of these mines, he should be entitled to damages for their wrongful acts regardless of whether or not he held a valid title deed from the United States government at the time they occurred