Hoyt & Another v. Russell 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, Hoyt and Russell, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The state court had issued a writ of mandamus to the county court, ordering it to issue a deed to Hoyt for the land. Russell argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, and that the county court should have been allowed to decide the case. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue the writ because the dispute involved a contract for the sale of land, which was a matter of state law. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to issue the writ because the county court had failed to act on the dispute. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of mandamus and that the county court was required to comply with the order.

In the case of Hoyt & Another v. Russell, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had died before it was executed. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration for the promise made by the deceased, and because contracts must be supported by consideration to be enforceable, this particular contract could not stand. Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds; he argued that while consideration is necessary in most cases, it should not always apply where an agreement has been fully performed or accepted prior to death. He further noted that if such agreements were invalidated due to lack of consideration then many innocent third-parties would suffer financial losses as a result of their reliance on these promises being fulfilled. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that although considerations are important in general they should not prevent enforcement of contracts which have already been partially or wholly performed at time of death and thus he disagreed with his colleagues' ruling in this case.