Van Riswick v. Spalding and Others 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 plaintiff, Van Riswick, and the defendants, Spalding and others, over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of California. 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 to federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court reasoned that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal court's exclusive jurisdiction. 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 writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal court's exclusive jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Van Riswick v. Spalding and Others, stating that he did not agree with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any fraud or mistake on behalf of either party, nor was there any proof that would have allowed a court to set aside an agreement made between two parties who had entered into it voluntarily and without coercion. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if such evidence had been presented, it would still be necessary for a court to determine whether or not setting aside said agreement would be equitable under all circumstances before doing so; this determination could only be made by examining both sides' respective interests in detail. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against reversing the lower court's ruling as he believed they were correct in their assessment of this case based upon its facts and applicable law.