Susan Vigel, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Henry Naylor, administrator of George Naylor who had passed away. The dispute was over the ownership of certain real estate that Susan claimed to have inherited from her father. She argued that she should be given title to the property as it was part of her inheritance and not subject to any other claims or debts owed by her deceased father. However, Henry Naylor argued that he held legal title to the land due to his appointment as administrator for George's estate and therefore could not transfer it without court approval. After hearing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Susan Vigel and granted her full title rights over the disputed real estate on account of its being an inheritance from her late father which could not be taken away by creditors or debtors.

In the case of Susan Vigel v. Henry Naylor, plaintiff in error Susan Vigel argued that a deed from George Naylor to her was valid and should be enforced by the court. The majority opinion held that since the deed had not been recorded before George's death, it could not be enforced as it did not meet certain legal requirements for validity under Ohio law at the time. However, Justice Grier dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were sufficient facts presented to prove an equitable title vested in Vigel prior to Naylor's death; secondly, he contended that even if such evidence was lacking or insufficient for vesting an equitable title in her favor prior to his death, she still had a right of action against his administrator due to their agreement and consideration given by both parties when entering into said contract. In conclusion then Justice Grier believed that either way justice would best be served if Vigels claim were allowed and thus dissented with the majority opinion which denied enforcement of her rights under said deed.