In John F. Callan and Michael P. Callan v Charles W. Statham and Others, the appellants sought to recover damages for a breach of contract in which they had agreed to build a railroad bridge over the Chattahoochee River in Georgia on behalf of the defendants. The Supreme Court held that although there was no express agreement between the parties regarding payment, it could be implied from their conduct that such an agreement existed; thus, when one party failed to fulfill its obligations under this implied contract, it was liable for damages resulting from its breach thereof. Furthermore, since both parties were aware of potential risks associated with building such a bridge across a river as large as the Chattahoochee River at that time - including flooding or other natural disasters - any losses incurred due to these risks would have been assumed by both parties equally unless otherwise specified in writing prior to construction commencing.

In the dissenting opinion of John F. Callan and Michael P. Callan v Charles W. Statham, Justice Curtis argued that the lower court's decision should be reversed because it was based on a misinterpretation of the law in question. He argued that under Massachusetts law, an executor or administrator could not bring suit against another person for damages caused by their negligence unless they had been appointed as such before any injury occurred to the deceased party whose estate they were administering; this was not true in this case since Statham had already injured one of the appellants prior to his appointment as executor or administrator. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been no pre-existing injury, Massachusetts law did not allow an action for damages against someone who negligently caused death without first obtaining permission from a probate court; again, this was not done in this case either so no action could be brought against Statham under state law at all. As such, Justice Curtis concluded that there was no legal basis upon which to hold him liable and thus reversed the lower court's ruling accordingly