Asa Green, plaintiff in error, brought a case against the lessee of Henry Neal, defendant in error. The dispute arose from an agreement between Green and Neal for the lease of certain lands owned by Neal. According to their contract, Green was to pay rent annually on or before a specific date each year. However, when he failed to make payment on time one year due to financial hardship caused by crop failure and other misfortunes beyond his control, Neal attempted to terminate the lease without providing any compensation for improvements made during its duration. In response, Green argued that such termination would be unjust as it did not take into account his efforts at improving the land nor did it provide him with sufficient notice prior to eviction. After considering both sides’ arguments and evidence presented at trial court level ,the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Asa Greene finding that although he had defaulted on payments due under their agreement ,Neal could not evict him without providing adequate compensation for all improvements made while occupying said property .

In the case of ASA Green, Plaintiff in Error v. The Lessee of Henry Neal, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the court should not have reversed its decision on the basis that it was an error to admit evidence after judgment had been rendered and entered into record. Instead, he believed that if there were any errors made during trial proceedings they should be corrected by a new trial rather than reversing their original ruling. Furthermore, he asserted that even if there was an error committed during trial proceedings which affected the outcome of the verdict then this could still be remedied through granting a new trial instead of overturning their initial ruling as this would provide more justice for both parties involved in litigation. Ultimately Chief Justice Marshall concluded his dissent by stating “that when no injustice is done to either party by allowing such correction or amendment [of errors], it ought not to be refused” thus advocating for courts to grant new trials whenever possible so as to ensure fairness and justice are served throughout all legal proceedings regardless of whether mistakes were made or not.