Dobson & Another v. Dornan & 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 compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Dobson and another, sought to compel the defendant, Dornan, who was a federal officer, to perform his duty of delivering a deed to them. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to compel a federal officer to perform a duty that was within the scope of his authority. Since the duty of delivering a deed was not within the scope of Dornan's authority, the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel him to perform the duty. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty.

In Dobson & Another v. Dornan & Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court's decision in a case involving title to land located within the boundaries of that state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction over such appeals and thus could not review or reverse decisions made by federal courts on matters concerning title to land situated within its borders. Justice Field dissented, arguing that since Congress had granted states authority over all civil cases arising under their laws, it should be assumed they also possessed power to decide appeals from judgments rendered by federal courts in those same cases unless otherwise prohibited by law. He further argued that no statute expressly forbade states from exercising this right and therefore concluded they were entitled to do so as part of their general powers conferred upon them by Congress.