Thomas Brown, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against The Union Bank of Florida, the defendant in error. Brown alleged that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property by the bank and sought damages for this deprivation. The Supreme Court held that although there was evidence to support Brown's claim, it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt as required under law. Therefore, they found in favor of the defendant and dismissed all claims made by Brown against them. This decision established an important precedent regarding proof requirements when seeking damages from another party for wrongful deprivation or other similar actions.

In Thomas Brown v. The Union Bank of Florida, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against a bank incorporated in that state. Justice McLean wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that while it is true that states have authority to regulate their own corporations and pass laws concerning them, this power does not extend so far as to give them exclusive jurisdiction over actions involving those corporations when they are brought by non-residents. He argued further that if such were allowed then any person who wished to bring suit against one of these banks would be forced into litigation in the home state of the corporation regardless of where they reside or where the cause for action arose from. Therefore, he concluded that since there was no evidence presented showing why this case should be tried exclusively within Florida's courts rather than elsewhere, it should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.