John McCullough and Cyrus D. Culbertson were the plaintiffs in error in a Supreme Court case against Gurnsey Y. Roots and Erastus P. Coe, which was decided by the court on April 7th 1856. The dispute arose from an agreement between Roots and Coe to purchase land owned by McCullough and Culbertson for $1,000 with payment due within one year of signing the contract; however, when it came time to pay up, Roots refused to do so claiming that he had been misled into believing that there were valuable minerals on the property when none existed at all. In response, McCullough and Culbertson sued for breach of contract but lost their case in both lower courts before appealing it to the Supreme Court who ultimately sided with them ruling that even if false statements had been made about mineral deposits they could not be used as grounds for rescinding a validly executed contract unless fraud or misrepresentation could be proven beyond reasonable doubt - something which Root's failed to do here thus making him liable for damages under his original agreement with McCollugh & Culberson .

In John McCullough and Cyrus D. Culbertson v. Gurnsey Y. Roots and Erastus P. Coe, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs because they had a valid contract with Roots and Coe to purchase certain real estate for $4,000; however, due to an error in judgment by their attorney at trial, they were unable to present evidence of this agreement before the jury or prove damages resulting from its breach. The dissent further noted that while it was true that there was no written contract between parties involved in this case, such contracts are not always necessary as long as both sides agree on all terms orally or through other means of communication - which is what happened here according to testimony given by witnesses who heard them discussing said agreement prior to its breach by Roots and Coe when they sold it instead to another party for more money without informing McCullough and Culbertson first about their intentions. Therefore, since these two men suffered harm due solely to negligence on part of their lawyer during trial proceedings (which could have been avoided if he had presented proper evidence), justice would only be served if court ruled in favor of plaintiffs despite lack thereof written proof regarding original deal made between them all those years ago