TUA v. Carriere & 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 court. The case involved a dispute between the TUA, a corporation, and Carriere & Others, a group of individuals. The TUA had filed a suit in a federal court against Carriere & Others, and the latter had filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The federal court denied the motion, and Carriere & Others then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel the federal court to dismiss the suit. 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 jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy that could only be issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court further held that the writ of mandamus was not available to compel a federal court to dismiss a suit, as the federal court had the exclusive authority to decide the merits of the case. In conclusion, 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 jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy that could only be issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court further held that the writ of mandamus was not available to compel a federal court to dismiss a suit, as the federal court had the exclusive authority to decide the merits of the case.

In TUA v. Carriere & Others, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity among its parties and therefore could not hear cases in which both parties were from the same state. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while there may be some technical issues with regard to diversity among the parties involved in this particular case, such matters should not prevent courts from hearing disputes between individuals who are citizens of different states when those disputes involve contracts made within their respective jurisdictions. He argued further that if Congress intended for federal courts alone to hear such cases then they would have explicitly stated so in legislation or other governing documents; however, since no such language exists it is reasonable for state courts to assume jurisdiction over these types of cases as well.