In the case of James Erwin v. Alfred J. Lowry, Curator of Alexander McNeill, Deceased, Erwin brought a suit against Lowry for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract between himself and McNeill prior to his death. The court found that there was no evidence presented to prove that any such contract existed or had been breached by either party; thus they ruled in favor of Lowry on the grounds that he could not be held liable for something which did not exist in the first place. This ruling established precedent regarding contracts made with deceased persons and their legal validity under U.S law at the time - namely, that such contracts are invalid unless proven otherwise through sufficient evidence provided by both parties involved in said agreement before its dissolution due to death or other circumstances beyond their control.

In the case of James Erwin v. Alfred J. Lowry, Curator of Alexander McNeill, Deceased, Justice Daniel delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed the judgment against Erwin and remanded it for further proceedings. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to support Erwin's claim that he had an equitable interest in certain property owned by McNeill at his death and thus should be entitled to receive some portion of its proceeds from Lowry as curator. In particular, Justice Daniel noted that although no formal contract existed between Erwin and McNeill regarding this property interest, there was ample testimony from witnesses who could attest to their agreement on the matter as well as other circumstantial evidence such as payments made by both parties over time consistent with such an arrangement. As such, Justice Daniel concluded that it would be unjust for Erwin not to receive any compensation for his efforts related to this property given all these facts presented before the court.