In the case of Browder v. M'Arthur, a dispute arose between two parties over the ownership of a slave named George. The plaintiff, Browder, claimed that he had purchased George from one William Brown and was therefore entitled to his services as an indentured servant for life. However, defendant M'Arthur argued that he had previously purchased George from Brown and thus held title to him. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Browder on the basis that there was no evidence presented by either party which could prove conclusively who owned George at any given time prior to when they both made their respective claims against each other in court. Furthermore, since it is impossible for someone to own something twice simultaneously or transfer property rights without proof of such transaction taking place beforehand; the Court found in favor of Browder's claim due to lack thereof being presentable by either side during trial proceedings.

In Browder v. M'Arthur, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction in such cases only to federal courts. However, Justice Story dissented from this opinion and argued that there was no constitutional provision preventing a state court from exercising its own authority in matters between two citizens of different states when those parties agreed to submit their dispute for resolution by the state court. He further noted that if Congress wanted to limit or restrict such power they could do so through legislation but until then he believed it should remain with each individual State's judiciary system as long as both parties consented and were willing participants in proceedings before said courts.