In the case of C.C. Lathrop v Charles Judson, the plaintiff in error (Lathrop) argued that he had a right to recover damages for an injury caused by the defendant's negligence. The court found that while there was evidence of negligence on behalf of the defendant, it did not rise to a level sufficient enough to warrant recovery under common law principles as no special relationship existed between them and thus no duty was owed from one party to another. Furthermore, since there were no statutory provisions at this time which provided for such recovery in cases involving mere negligence, Lathrop could not recover any damages from Judson even though his actions may have been negligent or careless. Ultimately, due to lack of legal precedent and insufficient evidence presented before the court regarding liability or causation issues related to this particular incident, judgment was rendered against Lathrop with costs assessed against him accordingly.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between C.C. Lathrop and Charles Judson should be enforced by the court. The majority opinion held that it should not because there were ambiguities in the language of the agreement which made it impossible for either party to prove their interpretation of its terms with certainty. However, Justice Curtis dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that even if there were ambiguities present in the contract's language, they could still be resolved through evidence presented at trial; secondly, he maintained that since both parties had acted upon their respective interpretations of its terms without objection or dispute for several years prior to litigation being initiated then those actions constituted an implied ratification of each other’s understanding and thus rendered any ambiguity moot. Therefore, according to Justice Curtis' dissent judgment should have been entered in favor of enforcing the contract as written despite any potential ambiguity therein