Waterville v. Van Slyke 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 Waterville Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New York, sought to enforce a judgment against the Van Slyke family. The Van Slykes argued that the judgment was invalid because it had been obtained in a federal court, and that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. 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 review the judgment of a federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the Van Slykes. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was a discretionary remedy, and that the state court had no authority to compel the federal court to act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court in the Waterville v. Van Slyke case. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to review the judgment of a federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the Van Slykes.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Waterville v. Van Slyke, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a New York statute and failed to consider its legislative history. He argued that under New York law, when an individual is appointed as a trustee of property for another person's benefit, they are not allowed to use any part of it for their own personal gain or profit without express permission from either the beneficiary or court order. The majority decision held that since no such permission was given by either party in this case, Van Slyke should be liable for damages resulting from his unauthorized use of trust funds; however Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation because he believed there were other factors at play which made Van Slyke’s actions permissible under state law. He noted that while there may have been some misappropriation on behalf of Van Slyke, it was done out of necessity due to financial hardship caused by circumstances beyond his control and therefore did not constitute fraud or breach of fiduciary duty as alleged by Waterville. In conclusion Justice Field stated “the facts do not show any fraudulent intent on [Van]Slykes' part…and I am unable to concur in the judgment rendered against him."