Stark v. Starr 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 county court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Stark, sought to compel the defendant, Starr, to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court to compel it to issue a writ of mandamus to the county clerk to issue a deed to Stark. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court. The Court reasoned that the state court had no jurisdiction over the county court, and that the county court was a separate and distinct court from the state court. Furthermore, the Court held that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to the county court because the county court was not a party to the case. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the county court, and that the plaintiff's remedy was to seek relief from the county court itself.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stark v. Starr, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied a prior decision of the Supreme Court. He argued that while it was true that a party may not be held liable for an act done by another person, this did not mean they could never be held responsible for such acts if there were some connection between them. In this case, he argued, there was sufficient evidence to show that Stark had been involved in the transaction which led to Starr's loss and should therefore have been found liable for damages suffered as a result of his involvement. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even though no contract existed between Stark and Starr at the time of their dealings with each other, it would still have been possible to hold him accountable under principles of quasi-contract or quantum meruit since he had received something from Starr without providing any consideration in return. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded that despite what might appear on its face to be an equitable outcome based on precedent set forth by earlier decisions of the court; justice demanded otherwise here given all relevant facts presented before them