Coulam v. Doull was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Coulam, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Doull, and that he had paid the full purchase price. Doull, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Coulam and that the purchase was invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Coulam, ruling that the purchase was valid and that Coulam was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the purchase was supported by sufficient evidence, including a deed of conveyance, a receipt for the purchase price, and a survey of the land. The Court also noted that Doull had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that the purchase was invalid. The decision in Coulam v. Doull established that a valid purchase of land must be supported by sufficient evidence, including a deed of conveyance, a receipt for the purchase price, and a survey of the land. The case also established that a party claiming that a purchase is invalid must provide evidence to support their claim.

In Coulom v. Doull, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed an appeal from a lower court decision that had found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to damages for breach of contract and negligence on behalf of the defendant, who had failed to provide him with certain services as agreed upon in their contract. However, Justice Abella wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that there were sufficient facts presented by the plaintiff which could have supported his claim for damages if they had been properly considered by the trial judge. She noted that while it is true that some evidence may be circumstantial or inconclusive, this does not necessarily mean it should be disregarded altogether; rather, such evidence can still contribute to establishing liability when taken together with other factors present in a case. In her view, these factors were overlooked by both parties during proceedings and thus she would have allowed an appeal so as to give them another opportunity at proving their respective cases before a different tribunal or jury.