James Jackson, ex-demise of Lazy Anderson brought a case against John Clark and Robert Ellison in 1828. The dispute was over the ownership of two slaves, named Jack and Tom. Jackson argued that he had purchased the two slaves from Anderson for $1,000 but never received them due to an agreement between Clark and Ellison to purchase them instead. He sought damages for breach of contract as well as compensation for his losses resulting from not receiving the property he paid for. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Jackson on both counts; they found that there had been a valid contract between him and Anderson which was breached by Clark and Ellison when they bought the slaves without his knowledge or consent. They also awarded him damages based on what it would have cost him if he had actually obtained possession of Jack and Tom at their market value at the time - $2,500 each - plus interest accrued since then amounting to more than double that sum overall.

In the case of James Jackson, ex-demise of Lazy Anderson vs. John Clark and Robert Ellison, Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the defendants from entering upon land owned by Anderson. He reasoned that since there was no proof presented as to who had legal title or possession of the property at issue, it would be improper for a court to grant an injunction without such evidence being provided. Furthermore, Johnson noted that even if one party did possess superior rights over another with respect to this particular piece of land, it would still be inappropriate for a court to interfere with their respective claims until they were fully adjudicated before a jury trial. Ultimately, Justice Johnson concluded that granting injunctions on disputed titles is contrary both "to law and justice" and should only occur when clear proof has been established as to who holds rightful ownership or possession over any given parcel of real estate.