Wall v. Bissell 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 arose when the plaintiff, Wall, sought to compel the defendant, Bissell, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ, while the defendant argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the 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 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 limited jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the 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 and a court of limited jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wall v. Bissell, arguing that the majority's interpretation of a contract between two parties was too narrow and did not take into account all relevant facts. He argued that when interpreting contracts, courts should look at both the language of the agreement as well as any surrounding circumstances or evidence which could shed light on its meaning. In this case, he believed there were sufficient external factors to suggest that one party had intended for their agreement to be interpreted more broadly than what was suggested by the plain language alone. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if courts only looked at literal interpretations of contracts without considering other contextual information then it would lead to an unjust result where one party is able to gain an unfair advantage over another due solely to technicalities rather than actual intent or understanding between them.