Green v. Fisk 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, Green, sought to compel the defendant, Fisk, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. Green argued that the Circuit Court had failed to act on a petition he had filed in the court. 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 state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was a form of judicial power that could only be exercised by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that could only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that such circumstances existed in this case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court, and that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the writ was necessary in this case. The Court's decision affirmed the principle that state courts lack jurisdiction over federal courts, and that the writ of mandamus is a remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Green v. Fisk, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the law. He argued that under California law, an executor or administrator could not be held liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they had assumed such responsibility upon taking office. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Green had assumed any liability when he became executor and thus should not have been held responsible for his predecessor's debt. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if it were true that Green did assume some degree of responsibility when becoming executor, then at most he would only be liable up to the amount of assets left behind by his predecessor - which in this case amounted to nothing more than $2 worth of property. Thus Justice Field concluded by stating "the judgment is erroneous" and urged reversal from the Supreme Court so as to protect future administrators from being unfairly burdened with liabilities they never agreed nor intended to take on themselves.