Litchfield v. Ballou & Others 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, Litchfield, sought to compel the defendants, Ballou & Others, to appear in a state court to answer a complaint. The defendants argued that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a 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 lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court held 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 and a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court also held 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 limited jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Litchfield v. Ballou & Others, stating that he could not agree with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that while it was true that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, this did not mean that one party had an absolute right to demand performance from another without regard for any intervening circumstances or changes in conditions since entering into said agreement. In this case, Justice Field believed there were sufficient grounds for rescission due to changed conditions and unforeseen events which made performance impossible or impracticable; thus, he concluded that it would have been unjust and inequitable for either party to insist upon strict adherence to their original agreement under such altered circumstances.