Swift v. Smith 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 plaintiff, Swift, sought to compel the defendant, Smith, to appear in a state court to answer a complaint. Smith argued that the state court lacked 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 state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court held that the state court could not compel Smith to appear in a state court to answer a complaint. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction.

In Swift v. Smith, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while there may have been some technical violations of state laws, these did not render the contract void or unenforceable as long as both parties had acted in good faith and without any intent to defraud each other or violate public policy. He argued that if courts refused to enforce contracts simply because they violated certain statutes then people would no longer trust their agreements and commerce would suffer greatly as a result. Therefore he concluded that even though there may have been some minor infractions of local laws here, those should not prevent enforcement of an otherwise valid agreement between two consenting adults who intended to abide by its terms at all times