In Terrell et al. v. Allison, 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 a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Terrell et al., filed a petition in the state court of Georgia seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the federal court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The state court granted the petition and issued the writ of mandamus. The defendants, Allison et al., then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. 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 federal remedy and that the state court lacked the power to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court lacked the power to issue such a writ. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus and that the writ of habeas corpus should have been issued by the federal court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus and that the writ of habeas corpus should have been issued by the federal court. The Court's decision affirmed the principle that state courts lack the power to issue federal remedies.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Terrell et al. v. Allison, arguing that the majority's interpretation of a contract between two parties was incorrect and should be overturned. He argued that the language of the contract itself did not support their conclusion, as it stated that if either party failed to fulfill its obligations under it then they would be liable for damages caused by such failure. Furthermore, he noted that there had been no evidence presented at trial to suggest any other meaning or intent behind this clause than what was written on its face - namely, an agreement between two parties whereby one could recover damages from another due to breach of contract. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that allowing a court to interpret contracts beyond their plain language would lead to confusion and uncertainty in future cases involving similar agreements.