In EDRINGTON v. JEFFERSON & ANOTHER, 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 of conveyance. The case arose out of a dispute between two parties over a tract of land in Tennessee. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed of conveyance. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court had no authority to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court further held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed of conveyance because the county court had already issued a deed of conveyance. The Court reasoned that the state court could not interfere with the county court's decision because the county court had already acted on the matter. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed of conveyance. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the county court's decision and that the county court had already issued a deed of conveyance.

In Edrington v. Jefferson & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500. The majority opinion held that such suits were not within the jurisdiction of a state court and must be brought in federal courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it contradicted prior decisions made by both Congress and the Supreme Court itself. He argued that Congress had given states authority to hear cases involving more than $500 when they involved citizens from different states, as long as there was no diversity between them on other grounds (such as citizenship). Furthermore, he noted several previous cases where similar issues had been decided differently than what was being proposed here; thus showing inconsistency with established precedent. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing states to have jurisdiction over these types of disputes would help ensure justice for all parties involved without having to resort to costly litigation at higher levels or risk injustice due to lack of access or resources needed for such proceedings.