In Turner v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 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 plaintiff, Turner, sought to compel the defendant, Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, to produce certain documents in a case before the state court. The defendant 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 noted that the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. 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 interfere with the proceedings of the federal court and that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court's decision was unanimous.

In the case of Turner v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior precedent established by this Court. He noted that while it is true that an individual may not be held liable for debts incurred by another person or entity, there are exceptions to this rule when one has acted as surety or guarantor on behalf of another party. In this case, Turner had signed a contract guaranteeing payment of certain bonds issued by his company; thus, under existing law he should have been held responsible for their repayment even if his company failed to do so. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that the majority's ruling would create confusion and uncertainty regarding contracts involving third-party guarantees since it could no longer be assumed they were binding upon all parties involved. As such, he concluded that the Court should have affirmed its earlier decisions upholding such agreements rather than overturning them in favor of a new interpretation based solely on policy considerations rather than legal principles.