In the case of William H. Irwin v. George O. Dixion and John A. Dixion, Irwin brought a suit against the two defendants for an alleged breach of contract in which they had agreed to pay him $2,000 for his services as a surveyor on their behalf but failed to do so after he completed his work. The Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence presented by both parties to establish that such an agreement existed between them and thus affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of Irwin awarding him damages amounting to $1,500 plus interest from when it was due until paid off in full. In its decision, the court noted that while contracts must be enforced according to their terms regardless if one party has acted unfairly or not kept up with their end of the bargain, any damages awarded should only reflect what is necessary for compensation rather than punishment or retribution towards those who have wronged another party through non-payment or other breaches of contract law principles

In the case of William H. Irwin v. George O. Dixion and John A. Dixion, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain facts when making their decision on whether or not the defendants were liable for damages caused by an explosion at their milling business. He noted that while it was true that they did not take proper precautions to prevent such an incident from occurring, there was no evidence presented as to how much damage could have been avoided if those measures had been taken; thus, it would be unfair to hold them responsible for all of the losses suffered by Mr Irwin due to his negligence in failing to properly inspect his own property prior to leasing it out for use as a milling business near theirs. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if some degree of liability should be assigned based on negligence alone, then any award given should only cover what is necessary and reasonable under these circumstances - anything more than this would amount too punitive damages being awarded without sufficient cause or justification