Eliza Brown, the appellant in this case, was appealing a decision made by the Circuit Court of Virginia. The original suit had been brought against Frances Swann and Richard B. Alexander by Eliza Brown for trespass on her land. The Circuit Court found that William T. Swann (now deceased) had owned the land before his death and thus dismissed Eliza's claim as it did not apply to him anymore since he was no longer alive at the time of trial. On appeal, Eliza argued that she should be able to sue both Frances Swann (the administratrix of William T.'s estate) and Richard B., who were now in possession of said property due to their inheritance from William T.. However, after reviewing all evidence presented during trial, including testimony from witnesses regarding prior ownership claims over said property between Eliza and William T., as well as other documents related to title transfers or sales agreements between them; ultimately Supreme Court ruled against Eliza’s claim because they concluded that there wasn't enough proof provided by her side showing any legal right or interest over said property which could have been transferred upon his death either through will or otherwise according to law applicable at that time period .

In the case of Eliza Brown v. Frances Swann and Richard B. Alexander, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have granted relief to Eliza Brown on her claim for damages against William T. Swann's estate due to his breach of contract with her late husband, John Brown. He noted that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that an agreement had been made between John and William regarding a debt owed by William, as well as its terms; however, this agreement was never fulfilled by either party before John's death. As such, Justice Story believed it would be unjust not to allow Eliza some form of compensation from the estate for this breach of contract given all the circumstances surrounding it - namely that she had already suffered significant financial losses due to her husband’s passing away without any recompense from his creditor (William). Therefore, he concluded that if justice were truly served in this matter then Eliza should receive some sort of remedy or satisfaction from William’s estate for their failure to fulfill their contractual obligations towards him prior to his death.