Ranney, Administrator v. Barlow & 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 involved a dispute between the administrator of a deceased man's estate and the executors of his will. The administrator sought to have the executors removed from their positions and replaced with someone else. The executors argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. 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 writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction over the executors, as they were appointed by a federal court. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court, and that the executors were not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. The Court held that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court, and that the executors were not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court.

In the case of Ranney, Administrator v. Barlow & Another, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the plaintiff and granted him relief from his claim against Barlow & Another. He noted that while it was true that there had been no actual delivery of goods to Ranney by Barlow & Another, this did not necessarily mean they were not liable as under Massachusetts law an agreement to deliver goods could be binding even without any physical transfer taking place. Furthermore, he argued that since both parties had acted upon their agreement and made preparations for its fulfillment then it would be unjust to deny Ranney’s claim on such technical grounds. As such, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that justice demanded a finding in favor of Ranney and granting him relief from his claim against Barlow & Another.