In the case of Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Pendleton & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a life insurance company. The company had refused to pay a claim on a policy issued to a deceased individual, and the state court had ordered the company to pay the claim. The company argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, and that the case should have been brought in a federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, and that the company was required to pay the claim. The Court reasoned that the company was subject to the laws of the state, and that the state court had the authority to enforce those laws. The Court also noted that the company had not raised any federal questions in the case, and that the state court was the proper forum for the dispute. As a result, the Court affirmed the decision of the state court and ordered the company to pay the claim.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Pendleton & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of state power. He argued that under existing law, states were not allowed to interfere with contracts between individuals or corporations unless it could be shown that such interference was necessary for public safety or welfare. In this case, he argued, there had been no showing of any such necessity; rather than being based on an actual need for protection from harm or fraud, the statute at issue simply sought to give one party an advantage over another by allowing them greater access to legal remedies than they otherwise would have had. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if every state were allowed to pass laws like this one without regard for their effect on interstate commerce and private contracts made outside its borders then "the most serious embarrassments" might arise in commercial transactions between citizens of different states. For these reasons he concluded that the majority's ruling should be reversed and the judgment below affirmed.