This case was heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1883. The plaintiff in error, Evans, was appealing a decision from the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. The case involved a dispute over a contract between Evans and Brown. Evans had agreed to pay Brown a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Brown had agreed to pay Evans a certain amount of money for the use of the same piece of land. The Supreme Court of Arkansas had ruled in favor of Brown, finding that the contract between Evans and Brown was valid and enforceable. Evans appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the contract was invalid because it was not supported by consideration. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The Court held that the contract between Evans and Brown was valid and enforceable because it was supported by consideration. The Court noted that the consideration was the mutual promises of the parties to pay each other for the use of the land. The Court also noted that the consideration was sufficient to support the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Evans v. Brown, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of state law and an incorrect application of federal constitutional principles. He argued that under Missouri law, which governed this case, it was not necessary for a plaintiff to prove title to land before filing suit against another party who had unlawfully taken possession of it; rather, they only needed to show some right or interest in the property at issue. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that even if proof of title were required by Missouri law as held by the majority opinion, such a requirement would be unconstitutional because it would deny plaintiffs their right to due process guaranteed by both Article IV and Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution. Finally he concluded his dissent with an argument about how allowing defendants like Brown in this case to remain on someone else's property without any legal justification could lead to chaos and anarchy within society as people began taking whatever land they wanted without fear of consequence or punishment from authorities.