This case involves a dispute between Gilbert C. Russell, the appellant, and Daniel R. Southard, Samuel D. Tompkins, William C. Bullett and William H. Pope (Administrators of James Burks), William L Thompson (Guardian to James Burks) and Samuel Burks Charles Burks & Nanc over an agreement made by the parties in 1847 concerning certain lands located in Missouri that were owned by James Burks at the time of his death in 1850. The agreement provided for Russell to pay $2,000 for two tracts of land with one tract being sold outright while the other was subject to a mortgage held by Russell until he paid off all debts owed on it which included taxes due from previous years as well as interest accrued since then; however when these payments were not made within six months after they became due according to terms set forth in said contract both tracts reverted back into possession of administrators/guardians who had been appointed upon death of decedent - thus prompting this appeal from Mr Russell seeking reversal lower court’s decision upholding validity such reversionary clause contained therein

In the case of Gilbert C. Russell v. Daniel R. Southard, Samuel D. Tompkins, William C. Bullett and William H Pope Administrators of James Burks, deceased; William L Thompson Guardian to James Burks, Samuel Burks Charles Burks and Nanc; Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have awarded damages to Russell for his losses due to breach of contract by Southard et al., as well as costs incurred during litigation proceedings against them in circuit court prior to their appeal being heard before the Supreme Court itself. He further argued that since there was no dispute regarding whether or not a valid contract had been made between Russell and Southard et al., it was unnecessary for him (Justice McLean) to consider any other points raised by either party on appeal - such as issues related to jurisdiction or standing - when determining how much compensation should be awarded for breach of said contract agreement(s). In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that awarding damages plus costs would be an appropriate remedy given all circumstances surrounding this particular case at hand