Gibson v. Lyon & 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 county court to issue a deed of conveyance. The case arose when the plaintiff, Gibson, sought to compel the defendants, Lyon and others, to issue a deed of conveyance for a tract of land that Gibson had purchased from them. The defendants argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue the deed. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue the deed. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to perform its ministerial duties, such as issuing a deed of conveyance. The Court further held that the writ of mandamus was a proper remedy for the plaintiff to seek in order to compel the defendants to issue the deed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed of conveyance. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a proper remedy for the plaintiff to seek in order to compel the defendants to issue the deed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gibson v. Lyon & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was an improper application of a state law to federal land. He argued that Congress had exclusive authority over public lands and any laws applicable to them must be passed by Congress itself. Furthermore, he noted that if states were allowed to pass such laws it would create confusion and conflict between different jurisdictions as each state could have its own set of rules for public lands within their borders. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating that allowing states to pass laws governing federal land would undermine Congressional power and ultimately lead to chaos in how these lands are managed.