Kittredge v. Race 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 arose when the plaintiff, Kittredge, sought to compel the defendants, Race et al., to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the federal court had failed to act on a case that had been pending before it for several years. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's proceedings. The Court also noted that the federal court had not been derelict in its duties and that the plaintiff had failed to show that the federal court had acted in an unreasonable manner. 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 federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case and that the plaintiff had failed to show that the federal court had acted in an unreasonable manner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kittredge v. Race et al., arguing that a state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting under orders from the United States government. The case involved a dispute between two parties over land title, and one of them sought an injunction from the state court to prevent any further proceedings by the other party on behalf of their claim. Justice Field argued that this was beyond the scope of authority for state courts because it interfered with federal officers performing their duties as directed by Congress or another branch of government. He also noted that such interference could lead to conflicts between states and create chaos within our system of dual sovereignty, which is why he believed it should be left up to Congress or some other higher authority than individual states when dealing with matters involving national interests like those at stake here.