In the case of Louisville, Evansville and St. Louis Railroad Company v. Wilson in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership rights between a railroad company and an individual named Wilson. The court was tasked with determining whether or not the railroad company had legal title to certain lands granted by Congress under an act passed in 1856 for construction of railroads from certain points within Missouri to specific locations at its borders. The court found that although there were errors made during proceedings at lower courts, these did not affect the final outcome as they pertained only to procedural matters rather than substantive issues related to property rights or contract law principles applicable in this case. Therefore, it upheld previous rulings favoring Wilson's claim over those presented by the railroad company based on his prior possession and use of disputed lands before any congressional grant was made.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Louisville, Evansville and St. Louis Railroad Company v. Wilson, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's decision that a state could regulate interstate commerce if Congress had not acted on it yet. He argued that this interpretation was incorrect because it allowed states to interfere in an area reserved exclusively for federal authority by the Constitution - interstate commerce regulation. According to him, even if Congress had not legislated on a particular aspect of interstate commerce, states did not have any power over it as per his understanding of constitutional law principles and precedents set by previous Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, he believed that Indiana's law regulating railroad rates was unconstitutional since railroads were instruments of interstate trade.