Hunt & Another v. Oliver 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 was brought by two individuals, Hunt and another, who sought to compel the county court to issue a writ of mandamus to the county sheriff to enforce a judgment against a third party. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus, as the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court had no authority to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court further held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to the county court, as the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court had no authority to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court also held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to the county sheriff, as the sheriff was an officer of the county court and the state court had no authority to interfere with the county court's decision. The Court concluded that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court or the county sheriff.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hunt & Another v. Oliver, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the law and precedent. He argued that there is no legal basis for allowing an assignee to sue in their own name when they are not a party to the original contract between two other parties. Furthermore, he noted that if such suits were allowed then it would be possible for any third-party with an interest in a contract dispute to bring suit without being named as a party or having been involved at all during its formation. Justice Field concluded by noting his disagreement with how broadly this ruling could be interpreted and applied going forward, which could lead to confusion and uncertainty within contracts law more generally.