Peters v. Bowman was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Peters and Bowman, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The state court had issued a writ of error to the federal court, which the federal court refused to accept. 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 superior jurisdiction to the federal court, and thus did not have the power to issue a writ of error. The Court also noted that the state court was not a court of appeals, and thus did not have the power to review the decisions of the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to the federal court, and thus the writ of error was invalid. This decision established the principle that state courts do not have the power to review the decisions of federal courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Peters v. Bowman, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for a patent on an invention already known or used by others prior to its application date. Furthermore, he asserted that if such a law were allowed to stand it would create an unjust monopoly over inventions which could not be justified under any circumstances. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while Congress may have intended for patents to protect inventors from competition, they did not intend for them to grant monopolies over existing knowledge or technology and thus their actions in this case were unconstitutional.