In the case of James A. Chandler v. Otto Von Roeder, Hamilton Ledbetter, and Charles Von Rosenberg, Chandler brought a suit against the defendants for damages due to an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence presented in court to support any claim by Chandler that he had been damaged as a result of the breach of contract by the defendants. Furthermore, it was determined that even if such evidence had been presented in court, it would not have supported his claims because they were based on assumptions rather than facts or legal principles which could be proven through testimony or other forms of proof. As such, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Von Roeder et al., dismissing all claims made by Chandler with prejudice and ordering him to pay costs associated with defending himself against these allegations.

In the case of James A. Chandler v. Otto Von Roeder, Hamilton Ledbetter, and Charles Von Rosenberg, the dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove his claim against the defendants for a breach of contract. The dissent noted that while there was some evidence presented by both sides in support of their respective positions, it was insufficient to establish either party’s claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, they argued that since this case involved an alleged breach of contract between two parties who were not present at trial and whose testimony could not be obtained due to death or absence from court proceedings respectively; it would be unjust for one side to prevail over another without clear proof being established first. As such, they concluded that judgment should have been entered in favor of neither party as no conclusive decision could be reached based on available evidence alone.