Haines et al. v. Carpenter et al. 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 involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land in the state of Ohio. The plaintiffs, Haines et al., argued that the state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court, while the defendants, Carpenter et al., argued that the state court did not have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the state court did have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court because the state court had jurisdiction over the dispute and the federal court was obligated to follow the state court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was necessary to ensure that the parties' rights were protected and that the contract was enforced. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court in the case of Haines et al. v. Carpenter et al. The Court found that the state court had jurisdiction over the dispute and that the writ of mandamus was necessary to ensure that the parties' rights were protected and that the contract was enforced.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Haines et al. v. Carpenter et al., arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that, under California law, a married woman had no right to convey her separate property without her husband's consent; thus, when Mrs. Haines conveyed land to Mr. Carpenter without her husband's knowledge or approval, it was voidable at his option and could not be enforced by a court of equity against him or his creditors as an act done with legal effect during coverture (the period of time during which a wife is legally subject to the authority of her husband). Justice Field further argued that even if Mrs. Haines' conveyance were valid under California law, she still would have been unable to transfer any rights in the land beyond those held by herself and her grantor since she did not own full title; therefore, Mr. Carpenter had no claim on this particular parcel of land because he acquired nothing from Mrs. Haines except what she already owned before conveying it away - namely nothing more than an equitable interest in one-half undivided share thereof - which could not pass through such deed as made by Mrs..Haines alone without joining with others who also held interests therein for their respective shares therein must all join together for its effective disposition according to established principles governing real estate transactions involving multiple ownerships