In West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Shawnee County Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a national bank. The case arose when the West St. Louis Savings Bank refused to pay a judgment against it in favor of the Shawnee County Bank. The Shawnee County Bank then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court, ordering the West St. Louis Savings Bank to pay the judgment. The West St. Louis Savings Bank argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus because it was a national bank and was therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over national banks and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over national banks. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a national bank. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over national banks and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Shawnee County Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to confusion and uncertainty in future cases. He argued that the court should have followed prior decisions which held that a party could not be deprived of their property without due process of law, regardless of whether they had actual or constructive notice of proceedings against them. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been sufficient notice given to all parties involved in this case, it still did not justify depriving one party from recovering what was rightfully theirs under state law. Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that such an outcome would create a dangerous precedent for other similar cases going forward as well as undermine public confidence in judicial decisions based on fairness and equity rather than technicalities alone.