Elizabeth R. Cartwright was the plaintiff in error in a Supreme Court case against Alexander T. Howe, George F. Richards, and William Richards (defendants). The dispute arose from an agreement between Cartwright and Howe to purchase land for $2,000 with payment of half due at the time of signing the contract and half due one year later. When it came time for payment on the second installment, Howe refused to pay claiming that he had not received title to some part of the property as agreed upon in their contract; however, this claim was found by a jury trial to be false. Despite this finding by a jury trial that there had been no breach of contract on behalf of Howe or any other defendant named in this case, they still refused to make full payment according to their original agreement which led Cartwright into filing suit against them seeking damages for non-payment plus interest accrued since then date when full payment should have been made originally per their contractual agreement. Ultimately after review by US Supreme Court justices it was determined that defendants were liable for all damages sought out by plaintiff including interest accrued since date when full payments should have been made originally per contractual agreement set forth initially between parties involved in dispute over land sale transaction gone wrong resulting from defendants' refusal despite being found innocent during initial jury trial proceedings prior thereto leading up until final decision rendered here today affirming liability owed unto plaintiff Elizabeth R..Cartwright accordingly as requested therein previously before court's ruling now finally issued herein today thusly ending

In the case of Elizabeth R. Cartwright v Alexander T. Howe, George F. Richards and William Richards, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written if it is clear and unambiguous in its terms. The dissent disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an agreement between Cartwright and Howe which stated that she would receive $500 for her services rendered to him over a period of time; instead they argued that this was not an ambiguous term but rather one which could only mean what it said - namely, that Cartwright was entitled to receive $500 from Howe regardless of any other circumstances or events occurring during their contractual relationship. Furthermore, they asserted that even if there were some ambiguity in the language used by both parties when entering into this agreement then it should still be interpreted according to its plain meaning so as to give effect to both sides' intentions at the time they entered into such an arrangement