Bonham v. Needles was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a county court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Bonham and Needles, over a piece of property in the state of Missouri. Bonham had purchased the property from Needles, but Needles later claimed that the deed was invalid and sought to have the sale set aside. 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 was not a superior court to the county court, and thus did not have the power to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties, as the dispute was a matter of private contract. The Court's decision in Bonham v. Needles established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to county courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the decisions of county courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bonham v. Needles, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that if a party is entitled to recover damages for an injury caused by another, then it should not matter whether or not they were aware of their rights at the time of the injury; rather, they should be able to bring suit as soon as they become aware of them. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been some kind of delay on behalf of Bonham in bringing his claim forward due to ignorance or negligence on his part, this did not mean that he was barred from recovering any damages whatsoever - only those which accrued after knowledge became available would be forfeited. In conclusion Justice Field stated: "The injustice done by denying him [Bonham] relief under such circumstances would shock all sense of equity."