Martha Bradstreet brought a case against Anson Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. She claimed that he had wrongfully taken possession of her property, which was located in New York State. The court found that Martha did not have legal title to the land and thus could not bring suit for its recovery. However, they also ruled that she had an equitable interest in it due to her long-term occupancy and improvements made on it over time. Therefore, they ordered Anson Thomas to pay Martha damages for his wrongful taking of her property as well as costs associated with bringing this case before them. This ruling established important precedent regarding how courts should view claims by individuals who do not possess legal title but still have an equitable interest in real estate or other assets due to their occupation and use thereof over time.

In Martha Bradstreet v. Anson Thomas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the decision of the lower court. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no constitutional provisions prohibiting state courts from exercising their authority in cases between citizens of different states; and secondly, he contended that Congress had not passed any laws which would limit or restrict such jurisdiction either explicitly or implicitly. He concluded by stating his belief that if Congress wanted to limit or restrict state court power in these matters they should do so directly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.