Matthews v. Warner & Another 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, Matthews, sought to have the state court issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court to compel the latter to issue a writ of habeas corpus. 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 held that the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court and that the writ of mandamus was properly denied.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Matthews v. Warner & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it was not within the court's authority to review state laws or decisions made by state courts unless there had been an infringement on federal rights or privileges. In this case, he noted that no such violation had occurred as none of the parties involved were citizens of different states nor did any other constitutional provision apply. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if a federal question existed in this case, it should have been addressed by Congress rather than by judicial action since Congress is better suited for making policy decisions with respect to interstate commerce matters. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting his disagreement with the majority’s ruling and its potential implications for future cases involving similar issues