The U.S. Supreme Court case Scotland County Court v. United States ex rel. Hill in 1890 revolved around a dispute over the validity of certain county bonds issued by Scotland County, Missouri to aid in the construction of a railroad line under an act approved on March 23, 1868. The plaintiff, William Hill, acting as trustee for bondholders who had purchased these securities from the county court clerk without knowledge that they were allegedly unauthorized and void due to irregularities in their issuance process (including lack of public notice), sought payment from the county court which refused claiming such bonds were invalid. The Supreme Court ruled against Scotland County stating that it was estopped from denying its liability because it had received benefits from issuing those bonds and could not now deny their legality after having allowed them into circulation where innocent third parties like Mr.Hill bought them in good faith relying upon their apparent validity.

In the dissenting opinion for Scotland County Court v. United States Ex Rel. Hill, the justice argued that a writ of mandamus should not be issued by federal courts to state officials unless it is absolutely necessary and there are no other legal remedies available. The justice believed that this case did not meet these criteria because there were alternative legal avenues available to resolve the dispute over whether or not certain bonds were validly issued by Scotland County in Missouri. Furthermore, he contended that issuing such a writ would interfere with state sovereignty and disrupt the balance between federal and state powers established by the Constitution. He also expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could intervene in local matters whenever they deemed fit without any clear limitations on their authority.