Willett v. Fister 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 error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Willett and Fister, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Willett had sued Fister in a state court, and Fister had appealed the decision to a federal court. The federal court had affirmed the state court's decision, and Fister had then sought a writ of error from the state court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to review the decision of the federal court, and that the writ of error was therefore invalid. The Court also noted that the writ of error was not necessary to protect Fister's rights, as he could have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court in the case of Willett v. Fister. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to review the decision of the federal court, and that the writ of error was therefore invalid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Willett v. Fister, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been fully performed or not. The contract in this case provided for an exchange of land titles between Willett and Fister, with each party receiving title to certain lands from the other. However, when Willett attempted to take possession of his newly acquired property he found that it had already been sold by Fister to another party without his knowledge or consent. Justice Field argued that since there was no evidence indicating any fraud or misrepresentation on either side prior to entering into the agreement, then both parties were bound by its terms and conditions even if one failed to perform their part afterwards; thus making Fister liable for breach of contract due to his failure to deliver title as promised under their agreement.