Thomson & Others v. Wooster 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 involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were the owners of a steamboat, and the defendant, who was the master of the steamboat. The plaintiffs had filed a petition in the state court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to pay them the wages they were owed. The defendant argued that the state court did not have 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 writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available in federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available in cases involving public rights, and that the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant was a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thomson & Others v. Wooster, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is beneficial or detrimental for either party. The fact that one party may have been misled by another does not change this principle; instead, Justice Field believed that any damages resulting from such deception should be addressed through other means than voiding an otherwise valid contract. Furthermore, he noted that while courts can refuse to enforce contracts which are against public policy or illegal under state law, neither of these conditions applied in this case; thus there was no legal basis for refusing enforcement of the agreement as written. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that contracts must be respected and enforced according to their terms unless there is clear evidence they violate existing laws or public policy considerations