In Knight v. Paxton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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, Knight, purchased a tract of land from the defendant, Paxton. Knight paid the purchase price in full, but Paxton refused to execute a deed of conveyance. Knight then filed a petition in the state court, asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue the deed. The state court granted the petition and issued the writ. Paxton then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue the writ because it was necessary to protect the rights of the parties involved. The Court also noted that the writ was issued in accordance with the laws of the state, and that the writ was necessary to ensure that the parties were treated fairly and that justice was done. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to issue the writ and that the writ was properly issued.

In Knight v. Paxton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in the same state as where suit was filed. The majority opinion held that such suits were not within the jurisdiction of any particular state court and must be heard in federal courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would lead to unnecessary delays and expense for plaintiffs who could otherwise bring their claims before local tribunals with greater speed and convenience. He argued further that Congress had never intended to deprive citizens of their right to sue each other without having first obtained permission from some higher authority or tribunal outside of their own states. Furthermore, he noted that there existed no constitutional provision prohibiting such suits between citizens residing in different states; thus, they should be allowed under existing laws unless expressly forbidden by Congress or prohibited by judicial interpretation thereof.