Moses & Another v. Wooster 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 federal court. The case arose when the plaintiffs, Moses and another, sought to compel the defendant, Wooster, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the Circuit Court was a court of limited jurisdiction and the state court had the power to issue writs of mandamus to such courts. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ because the Circuit Court was a court of general jurisdiction and the state court did not have the power to issue writs of mandamus to such courts. The Court further held that the Circuit Court had the exclusive authority to issue writs of mandamus to itself. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and denied the plaintiffs' request for a writ of mandamus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Moses & Another v. Wooster, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of land could recover damages for rents and profits from those occupying it without any proof of actual loss or damage suffered by them. The majority opinion held that such damages were not available unless there was some evidence showing what amount should be awarded as compensation for their use and occupation of the property; Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion because he believed it placed too great a burden on plaintiffs seeking redress for wrongful dispossession. Furthermore, he noted that if such a requirement existed then many cases where no actual loss or damage had occurred would go uncompensated due to lack of evidence regarding how much should be awarded in rent or profits. In sum, Justice Field argued against imposing additional requirements on parties seeking relief when they have already been wrongfully deprived possession over their land since doing so would lead to an unjust result which is contrary to existing law governing these matters.