This case involves a dispute between James L.D. Morrison, Trustee of Julia A.A.S. Morrison, and William H. Benton. The dispute arose out of a contract between the two parties, in which Benton agreed to pay Morrison a certain sum of money in exchange for certain real estate. Morrison brought suit against Benton, claiming that Benton had failed to make the payments as agreed. The Supreme Court held that Benton was liable for the payments, as the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that Benton had accepted the terms of the contract and had not raised any objections to it. Furthermore, the Court held that Benton had not provided any evidence that the contract was invalid or unenforceable. The Court also held that Morrison was entitled to damages for Benton's breach of the contract. The Court noted that Morrison had suffered a loss due to Benton's failure to make the payments as agreed, and that Morrison was entitled to be compensated for this loss. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Benton was liable for the payments as agreed, and that Morrison was entitled to damages for Benton's breach of the contract.

In the case of James L.D. Morrison, Trustee of Julia A.A.S Morrison v William H Benton, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have found for the plaintiff on their claim to recover damages from an alleged breach of contract by defendant Benton and his associates in failing to pay money due under a certain agreement between them and Julia AAS Morrison as trustee for her minor children's estate. He noted that although there was no written evidence of this agreement, it had been established through testimony given by witnesses at trial who were familiar with all parties involved and could attest to its existence; thus, he believed that sufficient proof had been presented to support recovery on behalf of the plaintiffs based upon this oral contract alone. Furthermore, Justice Field also pointed out how even if there was some ambiguity surrounding whether or not such an agreement existed between these two parties - which would normally require additional evidence beyond mere witness testimony - here it seemed clear enough from what had already been provided at trial that one did exist since both sides appeared willing to accept its terms when they initially entered into negotiations over it prior to any dispute arising later on down the line regarding payment obligations owed under said arrangement.. In conclusion then, Justice Field concluded that because sufficient proof had indeed been offered up during proceedings showing both sides' acceptance of this particular contractual arrangement along with other relevant facts pertaining thereto – including those related specifically towards proving damages suffered due lack thereof being paid out – justice demanded judgment be rendered in favor plaintiff accordingly so as ensure proper recompense be made available unto them without further delay or undue burden placed upon either party involved herein