John Brown, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Duchesne before the United States Supreme Court. The dispute arose from an agreement between Brown and Duchesne for the sale of certain goods. According to the contract, Brown was to deliver two hundred barrels of flour at a specified price within three months after signing it. However, due to circumstances beyond his control he could not fulfill this obligation on time and requested an extension from Duchesne which was refused. As such, Brown argued that he should be allowed additional time as provided by law since there were extenuating circumstances preventing him from fulfilling his contractual obligations on time. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Duchesne finding that no legal excuse had been offered by John Brown for failing to perform under the terms of their contract and thus held him liable for damages resulting from breach thereof.

John Brown, plaintiff in error, argued that the court should reverse a decision of the Supreme Court of Utah Territory which had denied him relief from an attachment levied on his property by defendant Duchesne. The lower court's ruling was based on its interpretation of a territorial statute concerning attachments and garnishments. Brown contended that this interpretation was incorrect because it violated both the letter and spirit of the law. He further argued that even if his interpretation were wrong, he should still be granted relief since he had acted in good faith reliance upon what he believed to be correct legal advice given to him by counsel at the time when he purchased certain goods with money subject to attachment. The majority opinion rejected these arguments and affirmed the lower court's ruling against Brown; however, Justice McLean dissented from this conclusion. In his dissent, McLean noted that although there may have been some technical errors made by Brown in relying upon faulty legal advice regarding how best to protect himself from creditors' claims under existing laws governing attachments and garnishments within Utah Territory, such errors did not justify denying him any form of equitable relief as long as they were committed without fraud or bad faith intent on his part. As such, McLean concluded that justice would only be served if Brown were allowed some measure of protection for having relied upon erroneous but honest legal advice given to him at the time when purchasing goods with money subject to attachment proceedings initiated against him by Duchesne