Grant v. Parker 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 county court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Grant and Parker, over a piece of land in the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. 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 was not authorized to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court also noted that the state court had no authority to review the county court's decision and that the county court's decision was final. The Court also held that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court was not authorized to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court noted that the state court had no authority to review the county court's decision and that the county court's decision was final. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. 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 was not authorized to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court also noted that the state court had no authority to review the county court's decision and that the county court's decision was final.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Grant v. Parker, a case concerning whether an individual had the right to bring suit against another for damages caused by a breach of contract. Justice Field argued that while it was true that there were certain exceptions to the general rule prohibiting suits between citizens of different states, this particular case did not fall within any such exception and thus should be dismissed. He further noted that if Congress intended to allow individuals from one state to sue those from other states over contractual disputes, they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to interpretation by courts. As such, he concluded that since no federal law allowed for this type of action at the time, then neither could any court or judge do so either and thus urged his colleagues on the bench to dismiss the plaintiff's claim as being without merit under existing laws.