In Coon & Another v. Wilson, 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 court to issue a deed to a party who had purchased land at a tax sale. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Coon and another, purchased land at a tax sale in the state of Missouri. The county court refused to issue a deed to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel the county court to issue the deed. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court did not have the power to interfere with the county court's decision. The Supreme Court also held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed because the county court had already made its decision and the state court could not interfere with that decision. The Supreme Court's decision in Coon & Another v. Wilson established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to compel county courts to issue deeds to parties who have purchased land at a tax sale. The decision also established that state courts cannot interfere with the decisions of county courts.

In Coon & Another v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by non-residents against a resident of that same state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did have jurisdiction, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while it is true that states may exercise their power to regulate commerce within their borders, they cannot do so in such a way as to interfere with interstate commerce or violate the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV of the Constitution. In this case, he believed that allowing non-resident plaintiffs to sue residents in local courts would be an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce because it would require out-of-state defendants to travel long distances for trial proceedings and thus incur significant costs associated with defending themselves in another state's courts. Furthermore, he argued that such suits could also lead to unequal treatment between citizens who reside within different states since those residing outside of where suit is filed are not afforded equal protection under law due process rights when compared to those living inside its boundaries