Stone v. Chisolm & Others 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 officer. The case arose when the state of Georgia issued a writ of mandamus to the Collector of Customs in Savannah, Georgia, ordering him to pay a certain sum of money to the plaintiff, Stone. The Collector refused to comply with the writ, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal officer. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the Constitution of the United States grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts to issue writs of mandamus to federal officers. The Court further held that the state court's attempt to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal officer was an unconstitutional exercise of power. The Court's decision in Stone v. Chisolm & Others established the principle that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to federal officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stone v. Chisolm & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a state court had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving executors of wills or administrators of estates, as it is an issue which falls within its own laws and regulations. Furthermore, he noted that Congress did not intend to give federal courts jurisdiction over such matters when they passed the Judiciary Act of 1789; rather, their intention was only to provide for diversity suits between citizens from different states. Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that if Congress intended otherwise then they would have explicitly stated so in their legislation instead of leaving it up to interpretation by the Court.