In Williams et al. v. Bankhead, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a judgment rendered in a state court could be enforced in a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiffs, Williams et al., had obtained a judgment in a state court against the defendant, Bankhead, for the purchase price of the land. The plaintiffs then sought to enforce the judgment in a federal court. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the state court could not be enforced in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the federal court had no jurisdiction over the matter because the contract was made in a state court and the judgment was rendered in a state court. The Court further held that the federal court could not enforce the judgment because it was not a party to the contract and had no authority to enforce the judgment. The Court concluded that the judgment of the state court could not be enforced in a federal court. The Court noted that the federal court could not interfere with the judgment of the state court and that the judgment must be enforced in the state court. The Court also noted that the federal court could not interfere with the state court's decision to enforce the judgment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Williams et al. v. Bankhead, arguing that the majority had misapplied a prior decision of the Supreme Court and failed to consider other relevant precedents when deciding this case. He argued that under those cases, it was clear that an action could be brought against a party who wrongfully took possession of property without any legal authority or justification for doing so. The majority's ruling would effectively allow such wrongful takings to go unpunished if they occurred before suit was filed by allowing defendants to raise certain defenses which were not available at common law and which did not exist in equity either before or after suit was filed. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that he believed these new defenses should only be allowed where there is some special circumstance justifying them, but none existed here as no evidence had been presented showing any good faith on behalf of Bankhead in taking possession of Williams' property without legal authority or justification for doing so.