In the case of Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Pendleton & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a life insurance company. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Pendleton and others, sought to compel the defendant, Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company, to pay a claim for a policy that had been issued to the plaintiffs' deceased father. The plaintiffs argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, while the defendant argued that the state court did not have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was available only in cases where the defendant had a clear legal duty to perform the action requested by the plaintiff. In this case, the Court found that the defendant did not have a clear legal duty to pay the claim, as the policy had been issued to the plaintiffs' deceased father and the defendant had no contractual obligation to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus.

In the case of Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Pendleton & Others, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied certain legal principles and misinterpreted relevant statutes. He noted that under New York law, an insurance company was not allowed to pay out dividends until it had accumulated sufficient funds from premiums to cover its liabilities and expenses. The majority's decision would have allowed the company to make payments without first accumulating those funds, thus violating this principle of New York law. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that while Congress did pass legislation allowing for such payments in some cases, it only applied when there were no other applicable state laws governing the issue at hand; since there were existing state laws on this matter here, they should take precedence over any federal statute passed by Congress. In conclusion then, Justice Field believed that the Court should have followed established precedent and upheld New York's regulations regarding insurance companies' dividend distributions rather than relying on a federal statute which did not apply in this particular situation.