McPhaul v. Lapsley 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 error to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, McPhaul, brought a suit against the defendant, Lapsley, in a state court. The state court issued a writ of error to the federal court, which the defendant argued was an improper exercise of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to issue a writ of error to the federal court. The Court further held that the writ of error was void and could not be enforced. The Court's decision in McPhaul v. Lapsley established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of error to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in McPhaul v. Lapsley, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason why it cannot be done so. In this case, he argued, there was no such legal impediment; therefore, the contract should have been enforced as written. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if one party had not performed their obligations under the contract then they could have been held liable for damages or other remedies available at law but instead of doing so here they chose to bring an action on equity which allowed them greater relief than what would normally be available at law. This type of equitable remedy was inappropriate in this situation and thus Justice Field dissented from the majority opinion holding otherwise.