Basket v. Hassell 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 compel a county court to issue a deed. The case arose when the plaintiff, Basket, brought a suit against the defendant, Hassell, in the state court of North Carolina. Basket sought to compel Hassell to issue a deed to him for a tract of land that he had purchased from Hassell. The state court issued a writ of mandamus to the county court, ordering it to issue the deed. Hassell appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a judicial remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a remedy. The Court further held that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that could only be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, and that the county court was the only court that had the power to issue the deed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Basket v. Hassell, arguing that the majority had misconstrued and misinterpreted a portion of California law. He argued that under California's Civil Code, an action for damages could be brought against any person who wrongfully took or withheld property from another without legal justification. The majority held that this provision did not apply to cases involving public officers acting within their official capacity; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and maintained that it was applicable regardless of whether the defendant was a private individual or a public officer. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some ambiguity in the language of the statute itself, its legislative history made clear Congress' intent to provide remedies for all wrongful takings by anyone - including those committed by public officials while on duty. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted his belief that since no other remedy existed for such actions taken by government agents at common law nor under state statutes prior to adoption of this particular code section in 1872 - then it must have been intended as an additional remedy available specifically for these types of situations.