The St. Louis, Vandalia and Terre Haute Railroad Company v. Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over railroad property rights. The St. Louis, Vandalia and Terre Haute Railroad Company (V&TH) claimed that the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company (TH&I) had violated an agreement by allowing another company to use its tracks for transportation purposes without obtaining permission from the V&TH first, as they held a joint interest in these tracks under their contract terms. However, TH&I argued that this was not necessary because it retained ownership of the track despite leasing it to other companies for operation purposes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of TH&I stating that while both parties shared operational responsibilities on the rail line according to their lease agreement; ownership remained with TH&I who could therefore permit usage by third-party operators without needing consent from V&TG.

In the dissenting opinion for the case between St. Louis, Vandalia and Terre Haute Railroad Company v. Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company, it was argued that there were significant errors in the majority's interpretation of contract law as well as their understanding of Indiana state laws regarding railroad companies' rights to lease property from other railroads. The dissenting justices believed that a more accurate reading of these laws would have led to a different outcome in this case. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of evidence presented during trial proceedings, arguing that some elements should not have been considered at all while others were undervalued by the majority opinion. Ultimately, they felt that justice had not been served due to these perceived misinterpretations and oversights.