McConihay v. Wright 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 arose when the plaintiff, McConihay, sought to compel the defendant, Wright, to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. The Supreme Court reasoned that the state court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the state court had the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a court of general jurisdiction, but not to a court of limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also noted that the state court had the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a court of limited jurisdiction, but only if the court of limited jurisdiction had exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court because the county court was a court of limited jurisdiction and had not exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court.

In the case of McConihay v. Wright, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of state law. He noted that under Florida law, title to land could not be acquired by adverse possession unless it had been held for seven years and paid taxes during that time period. In this case, however, there was no evidence presented to show either of these conditions were met; therefore, according to Justice Field's reading of the statute, title should not have been granted to McConihay as they did not meet all necessary requirements for acquiring title through adverse possession. Furthermore, he argued that even if one assumed such facts existed without any proof being offered in court - something which would set a dangerous precedent - then at least some kind of compensation should have been awarded to Wright since his property rights had effectively been taken away from him without due process or just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment.