Norrington v. Wright & 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, Norrington, sought to have the state court issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court to compel the latter to hear a case that Norrington had filed. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the plaintiff's complaint. The Court further held that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court because the federal court was a separate and distinct court from the state court. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court, and that the plaintiff's complaint must be addressed by the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Norrington v. Wright & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a party cannot waive their right to appeal when they have not been given notice of an adverse judgment or decree until after the time for filing an appeal has expired. In this case, he noted that there had been no notification of any kind regarding the final decree until more than two months after it had been entered into by the court below, which meant that Norrington could not have waived his right to appeal within the required timeframe as stated under law. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if Norrington did receive timely notice of entry of judgment or decree but failed to file a bill of exceptions within 30 days thereafter as provided by statute at issue here - such failure would still not constitute waiver because it is well established in jurisprudence throughout many states and territories across America (including California)that statutes requiring bills of exception must be strictly construed against those who seek relief from them; thus making it impossible for him to waive his rights without being aware thereof beforehand.