In the case of Read v. Plattsmouth, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a county treasurer to pay a judgment. The case arose when the plaintiff, Read, obtained a judgment against the county of Cass in the state of Nebraska. The county treasurer refused to pay the judgment, and Read sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel the treasurer to pay. The state court granted the writ, and the treasurer 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 the state had the power to compel the county to pay the judgment. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to issue the writ because the state had the power to protect its citizens from the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of mandamus and that the writ was properly issued.

In the case of Read v. Plattsmouth, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Nebraska state law that allowed for an appeal from a judgment in favor of a railroad company to be heard by the state supreme court was constitutional or not. The majority opinion held that it did violate Article III and IV of the Constitution because it gave special privileges to railroads over other litigants who could not appeal directly to their highest court. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had given states broad authority under its power granted by Section 8 Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) which included allowing appeals from judgments in favor of railroads as long as they were treated equally with all other litigants. He argued further that this particular statute did treat both sides fairly since any party could file an application for review before the state's highest court if they felt aggrieved by a lower court decision; thus, he concluded there was no violation of Article III or IV and therefore no reason why this law should be struck down on constitutional grounds.