Norton v. Hood 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 involved a dispute between two parties, Norton and Hood, over a contract for the sale of land. Hood had filed a suit in a state court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the federal court to issue a judgment in his favor. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the dispute. The Court also noted that the federal court had the power to issue its own judgment in the case. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court and that the federal court had the power to issue its own judgment in the case.

In the case of Norton v. Hood, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Hood from interfering with Norton's possession and use of certain land. He reasoned that although it was true that Norton had been in possession for some time, there was no evidence presented to show any title or right on his part other than mere occupancy. Furthermore, since both parties claimed ownership over the same property under different titles, it would be impossible for either party to prove their respective claims without resorting to a trial by jury. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that granting an injunction would amount to deciding the merits of each claim before they were properly adjudicated by a jury and thus constituted reversible error on behalf of the court.