Coyle v. Davis & Another 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 federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Coyle and Davis, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Coyle had obtained a judgment in the state court, but Davis refused to comply with the judgment. Coyle then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel Davis to comply with the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a prerogative of the federal court, and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's jurisdiction over the case. The Court's decision in Coyle v. Davis & Another established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

Justice Gray delivered the dissenting opinion in Coyle v. Davis & Another, arguing that the court should have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He argued that under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive power to regulate commerce among states and with foreign nations. The state law at issue in this case was a tax on goods imported into Pennsylvania from other states or countries, which Justice Gray believed violated this constitutional provision because it interfered with interstate commerce by imposing an additional burden on such imports beyond what would be imposed if they were purchased within Pennsylvania itself. Furthermore, he argued that even if there was no violation of federal law here, it was still inappropriate for a state court to interfere with congressional authority over interstate commerce as established by Section 8. In conclusion, Justice Gray asserted that since Congress had not granted any special permission for such taxation schemes like those at issue here and since these taxes interfered with its exclusive powers under Section 8 ,the judgment below should have been reversed and set aside accordingly.