In May v. Sloan, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a county auditor to issue a tax deed. The case arose when the plaintiff, May, purchased a tract of land from the county auditor, Sloan, and paid the taxes due on the property. However, Sloan refused to issue a tax deed for the property, claiming that the taxes had not been paid in full. May then filed a petition in the state court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel Sloan to issue the deed. The state court granted the writ, and Sloan appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to issue the writ because it was necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiff, and because the state court had jurisdiction over the parties involved. The Court also noted that the writ was necessary to ensure that the county auditor fulfilled his duty to issue the deed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of mandamus to compel the county auditor to issue the tax deed. The Court reasoned that the writ was necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiff and to ensure that the county auditor fulfilled his duty.

In the case of May v. Sloan, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain important facts and principles of law. He noted that while it was true that the defendant had been given notice of his right to redeem prior to foreclosure, this did not necessarily mean that he could not do so after foreclosure as well. Furthermore, since there were no specific provisions in either state or federal law prohibiting redemption after foreclosure, Justice Field believed it should be allowed under equitable principles. Additionally, he argued that if such a prohibition existed then it would be an unconstitutional taking without just compensation because those who have already lost their property through foreclosure would suffer further losses due to being unable to redeem afterwards. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that allowing redemption even after foreclosure is consistent with both legal precedent and sound public policy and thus should be upheld by the court.