Bryan & Others v. Kennett & Others 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, Bryan and others, sought to compel the defendants, Kennett and others, to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. The plaintiffs argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ, while the defendants argued that the state court did not have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue the writ because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court was not authorized to interfere with the county court's proceedings. The Court also noted that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a county court unless the state court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court in this case. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue the writ because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court was not authorized to interfere with the county court's proceedings.

In Bryan & Others v. Kennett & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in one state and then performed in another could be enforced by the courts of the latter state. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable under federal law, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that there should be no distinction between contracts made within a single state and those which are partially executed across different states; both should receive equal protection under federal law. Furthermore, he maintained that if Congress intended for these types of contracts to be unenforceable it would have explicitly stated so in its legislation rather than leaving it up to individual states or courts to interpret their meaning. As such, Justice Field concluded that any contract entered into with full knowledge of all parties involved should remain binding regardless of where it is performed or enforced.