Tupper & Another v. Wise 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 two parties, Tupper and Wise, who were involved in a dispute over a contract. Tupper had filed a suit in a federal court against Wise, and Wise had filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The federal court denied the motion, and Wise then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in a state court. The state court granted the writ, and Tupper appealed the decision to the Supreme 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 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 matter. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available in cases of extreme necessity, and that the facts of the case did not meet this standard. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the state court and held that the writ of mandamus was not available in this case.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Tupper & Another v. Wise, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of precedent and an incorrect interpretation of state law. He argued that under Michigan law, which governed this case, the plaintiff had no right to bring suit against his former partner for damages resulting from breach of contract because he had already received full compensation through dissolution proceedings. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some legal basis for bringing such a claim in this situation it would be barred by res judicata as both parties had previously litigated their dispute before a court with jurisdiction over them and reached an agreement regarding its resolution. Finally, he contended that allowing plaintiffs to pursue claims after they have been fully compensated would lead to unnecessary litigation and create uncertainty about when contracts are truly binding or not.