In the case of James L. Calcote v. Frederick Stanton and Henry S. Buckner, Calcote brought a suit against Stanton and Buckner for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract between them. The court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that any agreement had been made between the parties, nor did it find any proof of fraud or misrepresentation on either side in regards to this matter. Furthermore, they determined that even if such an agreement had existed at one point in time, it would have been void due to its illegality under state law as well as public policy considerations regarding gambling contracts being unenforceable by courts of equity or law. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stanton and Buckner and dismissed Calcote’s complaint with prejudice; meaning he could not bring another action based on these same facts again in future proceedings before this court or any other tribunal within their jurisdiction

In the case of James L. Calcote v. Frederick Stanton and Henry S. Buckner, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his losses due to the defendants' negligence in failing to properly secure their boat on a riverbank during high water levels. He reasoned that since it was foreseeable that such an event could occur, and since they had failed to take reasonable precautions against it, they should be held liable for any resulting damage or loss suffered by another person as a result of their negligence. Furthermore, he noted that there were no statutes or regulations at the time governing this type of situation so common law principles should apply instead; thus allowing recovery even if no contract existed between them prior to the incident taking place. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed that justice would not be served unless Calcote's claim was allowed and urged his colleagues on the court to reverse its decision accordingly