Walsh v. Mayer & 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 compel a federal court to act on a case. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Walsh, and the defendants, Mayer and others, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Walsh had filed a suit in the federal court to enforce the contract, but the court had failed to act on the case. The state court then issued a writ of mandamus to compel the federal court to act on the case. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the situation. The Court also noted that the federal court had the power to act on the case without the intervention of the state court. As such, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Walsh v. Mayer & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would create a dangerous legal principle. He argued that it is well-settled law that when an individual has been wrongfully deprived of property by another, they are entitled to recover damages for their loss from those responsible. The majority had held otherwise in this case, ruling against a plaintiff who had been wrongfully deprived of his property by defendants acting under color of state law. Justice Field believed this decision was incorrect because it created an exception where none should exist - allowing individuals who have acted unlawfully with impunity if they can claim protection under state authority or immunity laws. Furthermore, he noted that such a rule could be used as justification for future acts of injustice committed by government officials without fear of consequence or accountability for their actions.