Bond et al. v. Moore 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 a county court. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Bond et al., sought to compel the defendant, Moore, to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court to compel them to issue a deed to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. The Court reasoned that the state court had no jurisdiction over the county court, and that the writ of mandamus was a judicial act that could only be issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court also held that the writ of mandamus was not a proper remedy for the plaintiffs, as it was not necessary to compel the county court to issue the deed. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bond et al. v. Moore, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the facts and an incorrect application of legal principles. He argued that there were two separate contracts between Moore and Bond: one for labor to be performed by Moore, and another for materials to be provided by Bond. The contract for labor had been fully completed before any dispute arose over payment; thus, Justice Field argued that it should have been enforced as written without regard to whether or not payment had yet been made on the second contract concerning materials supplied by Bond. Furthermore, he noted that even if both contracts were considered together as part of a single transaction - which he did not believe they should be - then under existing law at least some portion of what was owed would still need to be paid out regardless of any disputes regarding other portions due from either party involved in this case.