Hall Neilson brought a case against Clark B. Lagow, David H. Lagow, and Elizabeth S. Lagow in the United States Supreme Court to recover possession of certain lands located in Indiana that had been granted by Congress to Wilson Lagow prior to his death. The court found that the land was not subject to partition among heirs at law or devisees under a will because it was held as an estate for years with no right of redemption after expiration of the term; therefore, Hall Neilson's claim could not be sustained on any legal principle applicable to such cases and he was denied recovery of possession from the defendants who were children and devisees of Wilson Lagow deceased.

In the case of Hall Neilson v. Clark B. Lagow, David H. Lagow, and Elizabeth S. Lagow, children and devisees of Wilson Lagow, the dissenting opinion was that the court should have granted a new trial to Neilson due to errors in jury instructions given by the judge at his original trial which had resulted in an unfair verdict against him. The dissent argued that since there were multiple issues with how evidence was presented during Neilson's trial as well as other procedural mistakes made by both parties involved in this dispute over land ownership rights between two families living on adjoining farms near Nashville Tennessee; it would be unjust for these errors not to be corrected through granting a new trial so that justice could prevail for all sides involved in this case without any further delay or prejudice being done towards either party's interests or legal claims regarding their respective property rights under state law at issue here today.