In the case of Pierre A. Berthold, Alfred C. Bernondy and Marklat Thompson v Edward Goldsmith, the plaintiffs in error were challenging a decision by the Supreme Court of Louisiana which had denied them their right to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The dispute was over a contract between Goldsmith and Berthold that involved two steamboats owned by Berthold being leased to Goldsmith for use as passenger vessels on Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. According to the terms of this agreement, it was agreed that all profits from these boats would be divided equally between both parties after certain expenses were deducted; however, when it came time for payment, Goldsmith refused to pay his share claiming he had already paid more than what was due under the agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Berthold et al., finding that they failed to prove any actual damage or loss suffered as a result of this breach and thus could not recover anything from Goldsmith beyond what he had already paid out according to their original agreement.

In the case of Pierre A. Berthold, Alfred C. Bernondy, and Marklat Thompson v Edward Goldsmith, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of plaintiffs on their claim for damages due to a breach of contract between them and defendant. The dissent reasoned that since there was no dispute as to whether or not a contract existed between parties, it was clear that plaintiff had been wrongfully deprived from receiving what they were entitled to under said agreement; thus entitling them to recover damages from defendant for his failure to fulfill his contractual obligations. Furthermore, the dissent noted that even if there were any ambiguities in terms of how much money plaintiffs were owed by defendant according to their agreement – which would be up for interpretation by courts – this did not absolve him from liability altogether as he still had an obligation towards fulfilling whatever amount is determined through such interpretation process. Ultimately then, it was concluded that defendants’ actions constituted a breach of contract and therefore plaintiffs deserved compensation accordingly