Sparks & Another v. Pierce & Others 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 over a contract for the sale of land in the state of Mississippi. The plaintiffs, Sparks and another, sought to compel the defendants, Pierce and others, to perform their obligations under the contract. The defendants argued that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. 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 writ of mandamus was a prerogative writ, and that the power to issue such writs was vested exclusively in the federal courts. The Court further held that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was not available to the plaintiffs in this case. The Court's decision in this case established that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts lack the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court.

In the case of Sparks & Another v. Pierce & Others, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of state law. He noted that under Tennessee law, when two or more persons are jointly liable for a debt and one pays it off without informing the other parties involved, then they are not released from their liability to pay it back. In this case, Sparks had paid off his share of the debt but did not inform Pierce and others who were also responsible for paying it back; thus they should still be held liable according to Tennessee law. Furthermore, Field argued that even if there was no express agreement between all parties regarding payment responsibility after Sparks' contribution toward repayment of the debt, any reasonable person would assume such an arrangement existed given its common sense nature and prior legal precedent set by similar cases involving joint liabilities in other states.