Menard v. Goggan 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, Menard, sought to compel the defendant, Goggan, to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court to compel it to issue a writ of mandamus to the county clerk to issue a deed to Menard. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. The Court reasoned that the state court had no jurisdiction over the county court, and that the county court was a separate and distinct court from the state court. The Court further held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to the county court because the county court was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. The Court also held that the county court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county clerk to issue a deed to Menard. The Court reasoned that the county court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county clerk because the county clerk was a ministerial officer of the county court, and the county court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county clerk to perform his ministerial duties. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court, but that the county court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county clerk to issue a deed to Menard.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Menard v. Goggan, arguing that the majority had erred in its decision to uphold a judgment of foreclosure against Menard's property. He argued that while it was true that there were some irregularities in how the mortgage deed was executed and recorded, they did not rise to such a level as would invalidate it or render it unenforceable. Furthermore, he noted that even if these irregularities could be considered sufficient grounds for setting aside the deed, this should have been done by way of an equitable action rather than through a suit at law which only addressed legal issues related to title and possession of land. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted his belief that equity demanded relief from foreclosure proceedings due to these irregularities but since no such relief had been sought by either party during trial then none should be granted on appeal.