In Brown et al. v. Gilman, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court's decision to grant an injunction against a defendant was not binding on another state court in which the same case had been brought by different parties. The dispute arose when two individuals from Massachusetts purchased land in Maine and then sold it to William Gilman, who subsequently mortgaged it for $2,000 without their knowledge or consent. When they sued him for breach of contract in Massachusetts courts, he obtained an injunction from a Maine court preventing them from suing him there as well. The Supreme Court held that this did not bar them from bringing suit elsewhere since each state is sovereign over its own laws and judgments; thus, any judgment rendered by one state does not bind another unless both states have agreed to recognize such judgments through legislation or treaty provisions between them.

In Brown et al. v. Gilman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states and foreign countries. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as this would be in violation of the Constitution's provision for diversity of citizenship among litigants in federal courts. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no constitutional provisions preventing state courts from exercising their own jurisdictional authority; secondly, he contended that Congress had granted certain powers to the states which allowed them to exercise such authority when necessary. He concluded by asserting that if Congress intended otherwise they should make it clear through legislation rather than relying on an interpretation of existing law or constitutional provisions which could lead to confusion and uncertainty about what is permissible under federal law.