Martha Bradstreet brought a case against Anson Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. She argued that she had been wrongfully evicted from her home by Thomas, who was acting as an agent for her landlord. The court found in favor of Martha, ruling that although agents are generally not liable for their principal’s actions, they can be held responsible if they act outside of their authority or with malice towards another party. In this case, it was determined that Anson acted beyond his scope and without legal justification when he removed Martha from her residence. As such, he was ordered to pay damages to compensate for the wrongful eviction and other losses suffered by Martha due to his actions.

In the case of Martha Bradstreet v. Anson Thomas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by Martha's husband before his death should be considered valid and binding upon her. The majority opinion held that it was not, as there had been no consideration for the deed and therefore it could not be enforced against her. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since Martha had accepted possession of the land in question after her husband's death she should have been bound by his actions; secondly he argued that even if there had been no consideration for the deed at its creation then subsequent events such as acceptance of possession constituted sufficient consideration to make it enforceable against her. Ultimately however these arguments were unsuccessful and did not sway enough justices to form a majority opinion in favor of enforcing the deed against Martha Bradstreet.