Herbert v. Butler 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, Herbert, sought to compel the defendant, Butler, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana. Herbert argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ, while Butler argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court could not interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Herbert v. Butler, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of a contract between two parties. He argued that when one party to a contract has performed their obligations and is awaiting payment from the other party, they are entitled to interest on any unpaid amounts due them under the terms of the agreement. In this case, he believed that Herbert had fulfilled his part of the bargain by delivering goods as agreed upon and should have been paid with interest for those goods according to their contractual agreement. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that if there were no provision for such compensation in contracts like these then it would be difficult for creditors to receive what they were owed without having to resorting legal action or taking advantage of debtors who may not understand their rights under such agreements. Ultimately, he concluded that while equity might dictate otherwise in certain cases where performance was delayed through no fault of either party; here both parties had acted within reasonable expectations and thus Herbert deserved full payment plus interest as provided by law at time specified in contract itself