Stebbins & Others v. St. Anne & 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 compel a county court to issue a deed. The case was brought by the plaintiffs, Stebbins and others, who were the owners of a tract of land in the state of Illinois. The defendants, St. Anne and others, were the owners of a tract of land adjacent to the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs had obtained a judgment from the state court ordering the county court to issue a deed to the plaintiffs for the land in question. The defendants then filed a petition in the state court for a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed to the defendants for the same land. The state court granted the writ of mandamus and the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a deed. The Court reasoned that the state court had no jurisdiction over the county court and that the writ of mandamus was an improper exercise of the state court's power. The Court also held that the writ of mandamus was an improper remedy for the plaintiffs' claim, as the plaintiffs had already obtained a judgment from the state court ordering the county court to issue a deed. The Court concluded that the writ of mandamus was an improper exercise of the state court's power and that the writ should be quashed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stebbins & Others v. St. Anne & Others, arguing that the majority had wrongly decided to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of California on appeal. He argued that there was no error in law or fact committed by the court below and thus it should not have been reversed. Justice Field further noted that under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, appeals from state courts are only allowed when there is an alleged violation of federal rights or laws; however, he found no such violation here as all parties were citizens of California and subject to its jurisdiction at all times relevant to this case. Furthermore, he contended that even if some federal question had arisen during proceedings before trial court, it would still be inappropriate for this Court to consider it because none was raised until after final judgment had already been rendered by lower court - which meant any issue regarding federal law should have been brought up earlier in order for proper consideration by both sides involved in dispute. Finally Justice Field concluded his dissent with statement: “I am unable therefore to concur with my brethren who compose majority opinion”