This Supreme Court case involved Samuel L. Fowler, the plaintiff in error, and Harris Brantly and others, defendants in error. The dispute arose out of a contract between the parties for the sale of land located in Alabama. In 1835, Fowler had agreed to purchase from Brantly two tracts of land totaling 1120 acres at $1 per acre with payment due within five years from date of agreement. However, when it came time to pay for the property after five years had passed by 1840, Fowler refused on grounds that he was not liable under his contract as there were no improvements made upon said lands as promised by Brantly prior to their agreement. The court found that although there was evidence presented showing some improvements had been made before 1835 but none since then; however this did not constitute sufficient proof that such improvements were part of an express condition or promise given by either party at time they entered into their original contract which could be enforced against them both now several years later without any further consideration being provided or exchanged between them during intervening period thus making it impossible for court to grant relief sought by either side based solely on terms contained within original document itself alone without more substantial evidence being produced proving otherwise than what appeared on face thereof .

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against citizens of another. The plaintiff argued that because the parties were from different states, only federal courts could hear such cases. However, the majority opinion held that since there was no diversity in citizenship between all parties involved and since none of them resided outside their respective states at the time suit was filed, then it followed that state courts did have jurisdiction in this matter. Justice McLean dissented with this decision and argued that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction to federal courts for suits between citizens of different states should be applied here as well. He further noted that even if some or all defendants were residents within their own state when suit was filed they still would not be able to avoid being sued in federal court due to their status as citizens from other states than where suit is brought.