In Brobst et al. v. Brobst, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed of trust was valid. The deed of trust was created by the defendant, John Brobst, in order to secure a debt owed to him by his brother, Jacob Brobst. The deed of trust was created in 1851 and provided that if Jacob failed to pay the debt, John would have the right to sell the property and use the proceeds to pay the debt. The plaintiffs, the heirs of Jacob Brobst, argued that the deed of trust was invalid because it was not properly recorded. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the deed of trust was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the deed of trust was valid because it was executed in good faith and with the intention of securing the debt. The Court also held that the deed of trust was valid even though it was not recorded, as long as the parties to the deed of trust had knowledge of its existence. The Court's decision in Brobst et al. v. Brobst established that a deed of trust is valid and enforceable even if it is not recorded, as long as the parties to the deed of trust had knowledge of its existence. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the law of trusts.

In the case of Brobst et al. v. Brobst, Chief Justice Chase delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of Pennsylvania law and would lead to unjust results for the parties involved. He noted that under Pennsylvania law, when a person dies without leaving any heirs or devisees, their estate is distributed among all their next-of-kin according to certain rules set out by statute. In this case, however, the majority had held that since one of those next-of-kin (the defendant) had already received some money from another source related to his deceased relative's estate prior to her death - namely through a settlement agreement with other relatives - then he should not be entitled to receive anything further from her estate upon her death as it would amount to double recovery for him. Chief Justice Chase disagreed with this reasoning and argued instead that since there was no evidence indicating any intention on behalf of either party at the time they entered into said settlement agreement regarding how it might affect distribution rights after death; therefore such an outcome could not have been intended by them and thus should not be enforced against them now. He concluded by stating that if such an interpretation were allowed stand then it could potentially create serious injustices in similar cases going forward where people may unknowingly enter into agreements which later turn out deprive them or others close to them of rightful inheritances due under state laws governing intestate succession