Weaver & Others v. Field & 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 a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Weaver and others, filed a petition in the state court of California seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the federal court to hear their case. The defendants, Field and others, argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. 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 reasoned that the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, as this would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. 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 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 the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Weaver & Others v. Field & Others, arguing that the majority’s decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a contract should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one party may have intended or believed it meant at the time of signing. Furthermore, he noted that while there were some ambiguities present in this case due to conflicting evidence as to whether certain terms had been agreed upon orally or not, these ambiguities did not warrant disregarding the written agreement altogether and instead relying on extrinsic evidence such as testimony from witnesses who were present when it was signed. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if courts are allowed to interpret contracts based on their own subjective understanding of what parties might have intended rather than strictly adhering to their plain language then “the law will become uncertain; litigation will increase; and justice delayed."