In Stebbins v. Duncan and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the State of California over the ownership of certain lands in California. The United States had granted the lands to the State of California, but the State had failed to pay the purchase price. The United States then sought to recover the lands by filing a suit in the state court. The state court issued a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a federal officer, ordering him to execute a deed conveying the lands to the United States. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a command to a federal officer to perform a duty, and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a command. The Court further held that the writ of mandamus was an exercise of judicial power, and that the state court did not have the power to exercise judicial power over a federal officer. The Court concluded that the writ of mandamus was invalid and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it.

In Stebbins v. Duncan and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against citizens of another state in which the cause of action arose. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because the Constitution does not grant states authority to exercise judicial power beyond their own borders. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that Congress has granted states concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts when it comes to cases involving citizens from different states. He argued that since Congress has given its consent for such actions, then there is no constitutional impediment preventing them from being heard in either federal or state courts. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of suits would promote justice and prevent forum shopping as plaintiffs could choose whichever court they felt provided them with more favorable conditions for their case's resolution.