Estey & Others v. Burdett 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 federal court. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Estey & Others, sought to compel the defendant, Burdett, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the federal court had failed to act on a case that had been pending before it for several years. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with its proceedings. The Court further held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the federal court to act on a case that had been pending before it for several years. The Court's decision in Estey & Others v. Burdett 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 has become an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

In Estey & Others v. Burdett, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a probate court decision in which the executor of an estate sought to recover money paid out by him as legacies under a will. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction over such appeals and thus affirmed the lower courts’ decisions denying relief for appellants. Justice Field dissented, arguing that although there were no express provisions granting appellate power to state courts in this case, it should be implied due to its importance and necessity for justice. He argued that if states are unable to review cases involving estates or trusts then parties would be left without any remedy when their rights are violated by probate judges who act beyond their authority or make mistakes in applying law. Furthermore, he noted that allowing appeals from probate decisions is consistent with other jurisdictions where similar powers have been granted and is necessary for protecting individuals’ property interests against wrongful acts of those administering them.