In Taylor and Quarles v. Brown, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving two men who had been convicted in Virginia for stealing goods from a store owned by William Brown. The defendants argued that they were not guilty because they believed that Brown was not legally entitled to own the property due to his status as an African-American man at the time. The court ruled against them, finding that although slavery was illegal in Virginia at this point, it did not invalidate any contracts or agreements made prior to its abolition. As such, Brown's ownership of the store was valid and binding upon all parties involved; thus making their conviction lawful under state law. This ruling established precedent for future cases regarding similar issues concerning racial discrimination and civil rights violations within US states during this period of history.

In Taylor and Quarles v. Brown, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction in this case because it involved property located within its borders. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial to show that either party resided in the same state as where the property was located; second, he contended that even if such evidence existed, it would not be sufficient for establishing jurisdiction since both parties were citizens of different states and thus subject to federal laws regarding interstate commerce disputes. Ultimately, Justice Chase concluded that only Congress could decide these matters due to their constitutional authority over interstate commerce issues.