In Hutchins et al. v. King, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal officer in order to prevent him from executing his official duties under federal law. The case involved two parties: William Huchins and others, who were citizens of Georgia; and John King, who was appointed by President Abraham Lincoln as Collector of Internal Revenue for the State of Georgia during the Civil War. The plaintiffs sought an injunction from a state court prohibiting King from collecting taxes imposed by Congress on certain goods imported into Georgia pursuant to its revenue laws. The Supreme Court held that because such collection was authorized by federal law, it could not be enjoined or prevented by any action taken in a state court—even if it conflicted with local laws or customs—as this would interfere with congressional authority over matters within its exclusive control under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 (the “Necessary and Proper” clause) of the U.S Constitution . Therefore, since only Congress has power over these matters, any attempt at interference must fail regardless whether done through direct legislation or judicial decree issued in violation thereof

In Hutchins et al. v. King, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500 and no diversity of citizenship existed between the parties. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the jurisdiction of any state court, but rather must be heard in federal courts with original jurisdiction over cases involving controversies between citizens from different states or foreign countries. Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that it would be unjust to deny individuals access to justice simply because they could not afford to bring their case before a federal court; he argued that Congress should have provided for some form of concurrent jurisdiction so as to ensure equal access regardless of financial means. He further noted that there was nothing unconstitutional about allowing states' courts concurrent authority when dealing with matters arising under laws passed by Congress and concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for all people—rich or poor—to have access to justice without having their rights denied due solely economic considerations