Holladay v. Daily was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 plaintiff, Holladay, sought to compel the defendant, Daily, to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The plaintiff argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ, while the defendant argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court held that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court further held that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was a court of limited jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Holladay v. Daily, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of state law. He argued that under Tennessee law, which governed this case, an executor had no authority to sell real estate without court approval and thus could not convey title to another party. The Court should have held that since there was no valid deed from the executor conveying title to Holladay, he did not acquire any rights or interests in the property at issue and therefore lacked standing to bring suit against Daily for trespass. In addition, Justice Field noted that even if it were assumed that Holladay acquired some interest in the land through his purchase from the executor—which he believed was incorrect—the evidence showed clearly that such interest had been extinguished by adverse possession prior to when Holladay brought suit against Daily. Therefore, Justice Field concluded with a call for reversal of judgment as well as costs awarded back to defendant-appellant Daily