Hausfelt v. Harrison was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enjoin a federal court from hearing a case. The case arose when the plaintiff, Hausfelt, filed a suit in a federal court against the defendant, Harrison, for the collection of a debt. The defendant then filed a motion in a state court to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. 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 a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court further held that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court was not authorized to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hauset v. Harrison, arguing that the majority had misapplied a prior Supreme Court decision to reach its conclusion. He argued that the court should have applied an earlier case which held that when a party has been induced by fraud or mistake to enter into a contract, they may rescind it and be restored to their original position as if no such contract ever existed. In this instance, he argued, there was sufficient evidence of fraud on behalf of Harrison for Haustelt's claim of rescission to be valid. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Haustelt did not prove his case with clear and convincing evidence (as required by law), then at least he should have been allowed damages for any losses incurred due to Harrison's fraudulent actions. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that because Haustelts' rights were violated through deceitful means and without proper compensation being provided for those wrongs committed against him; justice demanded reversal of the lower court’s ruling in favor of Harrison