Palmer v. Hussey 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, Palmer, sued the defendant, Hussey, in a state court in Massachusetts. 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 the United States, and therefore did not have the power to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The Court further held that the writ of error was an improper exercise of jurisdiction, and that the state court should have dismissed the case. The decision in Palmer v. Hussey established that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts do not have the power to review the decisions of federal courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Palmer v. Hussey, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the applicable statute. He argued that under the plain language of the statute, it was clear that Congress intended to provide for an appeal from any final judgment or decree rendered by a court in admiralty cases. The Court had previously held this same interpretation when considering similar statutes and should have done so again here. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if Congress did not intend to allow appeals from such judgments then they would be left without remedy as there is no other way to challenge them than through an appeal process. As such, he concluded that allowing appeals in these types of cases was necessary and proper under both law and equity principles which should have been recognized by his colleagues on the bench instead of disregarding them as they had done with their ruling against Palmer's right to appeal her case.