James G. Wilson appealed a case against George A. Sandford and Robert G. Musgrove in which he claimed that they had unlawfully taken possession of his land located in the state of Mississippi, as well as other property belonging to him such as slaves and livestock. The Supreme Court held that the defendants were not liable for taking possession of the land because it was legally owned by them at the time they took possession, due to an earlier deed from another party who had previously purchased it from Wilson's father-in-law without his knowledge or consent. Furthermore, since there was no evidence presented showing any fraud on behalf of either defendant, their actions could not be considered unlawful under Mississippi law at that time; thus, Wilson's appeal was denied and judgment affirmed in favor of Sandford and Musgrove.

In the case of James G. Wilson v. George A. Sandford and Robert G. Musgrove, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred in their decision to deny Wilson's claim for damages against Sandford and Musgrove due to an alleged breach of contract between them involving a land sale agreement. He noted that while there was no written contract between the parties, it could be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as correspondence exchanged by them prior to the transaction taking place that they did indeed enter into an oral agreement regarding this matter; thus, making it binding under Georgia law at the time of its occurrence since verbal contracts were legally enforceable within said jurisdiction during this period in history. Furthermore, he asserted that even if one assumed there was no valid contractual relationship between these individuals then still Wilson should have been awarded some form of compensation for his losses because both defendants had acted negligently towards him when dealing with this situation and therefore deserved to be held liable accordingly regardless if any formal arrangement existed or not on paper