In Thomas Otis Le Roy and David Smith v. Benjamin Tatham, Jun., Henry B. Tatham, and George N. Tatham, the appellants brought a suit against the respondents for damages caused by their negligence in failing to properly secure an animal they had sold them that subsequently escaped from its enclosure and damaged property belonging to the appellants. The Supreme Court of New York found in favor of the respondents on grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any agreement between parties as to who would be responsible for securing or maintaining custody over said animal after it was purchased by appellants; thus affirming judgment below which dismissed complaint with costs against appellant's counsels' fees paid by them respectively. In conclusion, since there was no contract between parties regarding responsibility for security or maintenance of animal after purchase, court ruled in favor of respondent defendants due to lack of proof establishing liability on part thereof towards alleged damages incurred by plaintiffs resulting from escapee livestock incident

In Thomas Otis Le Roy and David Smith v. Benjamin Tatham, Jun., Henry B. Tatham, and George N. Tatham, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the appellants because they had a valid contract with the appellees to purchase land from them for $1,000. The dissent noted that although there was no written agreement between all parties involved in this case, it was clear from their actions that an oral agreement had been made which constituted a binding contract under New York law at the time of this dispute. Furthermore, even though one party may not have fully performed his obligations as outlined by said contract due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control (in this case being unable to obtain title), he still must be held liable for damages resulting from breach of said contract if such damages can be proven by another party who has fulfilled their contractual duties (in this case paying money). Therefore since both parties were able to prove performance on their part according to terms agreed upon orally prior to any issues arising regarding title transfer or other matters related thereto; it is only justifiable for justice’s sake that judgment should go in favor of those who kept up their end of bargain despite difficulties encountered along way – namely appellants herein – so as not reward those whose failure perform caused harm others yet remain unpunished themselves without legal recourse available against them otherwise heretofore provided within framework our laws governing contracts applicable present situation before us now today