In Arthur v. Cumming et al., 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 compel a county auditor to issue a tax deed. The case arose when the plaintiff, Arthur, purchased a tract of land from the county auditor, who was authorized to issue tax deeds. The auditor refused to issue the deed, claiming that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel him to do so. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county auditor to issue the tax deed. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the auditor to perform a ministerial duty, which in this case was to issue the tax deed. The Court further held that the auditor was not entitled to refuse to issue the deed on the grounds that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county auditor to issue the tax deed. The Court reasoned that the auditor was not entitled to refuse to issue the deed on the grounds that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ.

In the case of Arthur v. Cumming et al., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority had erred in their decision to deny the plaintiff's claim for damages. He argued that under California law, which was applicable in this case, an individual who has been wrongfully deprived of property is entitled to recover damages from those responsible for such deprivation. The majority had held that since no specific amount of money or other form of compensation was specified by statute as being due to individuals whose rights have been violated, then no recovery could be allowed; however, Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning and instead asserted that when a person has suffered injury through another’s wrongful act they are entitled to receive just compensation regardless if it is specifically provided by statute or not. Furthermore he noted that while statutes may provide guidance on what constitutes reasonable compensation for certain types of injuries there will always remain cases where courts must determine what would constitute fair and adequate recompense based upon all relevant facts and circumstances presented before them.