Smiths v. Shoemaker was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 Smiths, a married couple, sued Shoemaker in a state court in Pennsylvania for the recovery of a debt. The Smiths obtained a judgment against Shoemaker, but Shoemaker refused to pay the judgment. The Smiths then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel the federal court to issue a writ of execution against Shoemaker. 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 state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy that could only be issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court further held that the writ of mandamus was not available to the Smiths because the federal court had already denied their request for a writ of execution. The Court's decision in Smiths v. Shoemaker established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the issue of state court jurisdiction over federal courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Smiths v. Shoemaker, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the language of a contract between two parties and thus wrongly decided against Smiths. He argued that it was clear from both the letter and spirit of their agreement that Smiths was entitled to compensation for his services as an agent for Shoemaker's business, regardless of whether or not he actually procured any customers during his tenure. Field further noted that while there may have been some ambiguity in regards to how much money should be paid out, this did not mean that no payment should be made at all; rather, it meant only that such disputes would need to be settled through arbitration or other means outside of court proceedings. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by asserting his belief that justice demanded a ruling in favor of Smiths due to the fact he had performed valuable services on behalf of Shoemaker's company without receiving anything in return.