In the case of Prentice & Weissinger v. Platoff Zane's Administrator, two partners in a business sued an administrator for failing to pay them money owed from a contract. The plaintiffs argued that they had fulfilled their obligations under the contract and were entitled to payment, but the defendant claimed that he was not liable because he was only acting as an agent of another party who had since died without paying him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that even though there may have been some ambiguity regarding who exactly was responsible for making payments under the contract, it did not absolve either party from fulfilling their contractual obligations and thus both parties were still liable for any unpaid debts or damages resulting from breach of said agreement.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the court should have found in favor of Prentice & Weissinger. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to prove their claim and that they had a valid contract with Platoff Zane's Administrator. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some ambiguities in the contract, it should be interpreted liberally so as to uphold its validity and protect those who relied on it. In addition, he noted that any doubts about whether or not Prentice & Weissinger could recover damages from Platoff Zane's Administrator should be resolved against him since he was responsible for drafting the agreement. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded by stating his belief that justice would best be served by finding in favor of Prentice & Weissinger and allowing them to receive compensation for their losses due to breach of contract.