Townsend v. Little and 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 of conveyance. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The case arose when the plaintiff, Townsend, brought a suit in the state court of Mississippi to compel the county court of Hinds County to issue a deed of conveyance to him. The county court had refused to issue the deed, claiming that it did not have the authority to do so. The state court issued a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue the deed. The county court then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a judicial remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a remedy. The Court further held that the county court had the exclusive authority to issue the deed of conveyance, and that the state court could not interfere with the county court's decision. In conclusion, 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 of conveyance. The Court held that the county court had the exclusive authority to issue the deed, and that the state court could not interfere with the county court's decision.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Townsend v. Little and Others, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent. He argued that a state court had no authority to interfere with an action brought by a citizen of another state in federal court, as it would be unconstitutional for one state to exercise jurisdiction over citizens of other states without their consent. Furthermore, he noted that even if such interference were permissible under certain circumstances, this case did not meet those criteria because there was no evidence of fraud or collusion between the parties involved. Finally, Justice Field asserted that allowing a state court to interfere with actions brought before federal courts would undermine public confidence in the judicial system and could lead to chaos and confusion among litigants who are uncertain about which forum they should bring their claims before.