In Brobst v. Brobst, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a deed executed in Pennsylvania was valid and enforceable even though it had not been recorded as required by state law. The plaintiff, John Brobst, had purchased land from his brother-in-law for $1,000 but failed to record the deed within one year as required under Pennsylvania law. His brother-in-law then sold the same property to another party who subsequently brought suit against John for possession of the land. The court determined that since there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith on behalf of either party involved in executing and delivering the deed, it should be enforced despite its failure to comply with recording requirements set forth by state statute.

In Brobst v. Brobst, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by a husband and wife constituted an equitable mortgage or an absolute conveyance. The majority opinion held that it was an absolute conveyance, but Justice Miller dissented from this ruling. He argued that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed indicated that it should be considered as an equitable mortgage rather than as a transfer of title in fee simple. In particular, he noted that there had been no consideration given for the deed other than what would normally accompany such transactions; thus, he concluded that it should not be interpreted as conveying full ownership rights to either party involved in its execution. Furthermore, Justice Miller pointed out how both parties had continued to treat their respective interests in accordance with those which they possessed prior to executing said instrument - namely, each retained possession over his/her own property and managed them accordingly - thereby further supporting his conclusion regarding its nature being one of equity rather than outright sale or gift