In the case of State of Florida on the Relation of Wailes v. Croom, Comptroller of the State of Florida in 1912, Colonel George F. Drew and Benjamin E. Wailes had been appointed by Governor Bloxham to recover lands that were improperly granted to railroad companies by the state. They were promised a percentage (15%) as compensation for their services but after successfully recovering over one million acres worth several million dollars, they were denied payment by Albert W Gilchrist who was then governor and A.C Croom who was comptroller at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against Wailes' estate (he died during litigation), stating that no enforceable contract existed between them and the state because it lacked proper legislative approval which is required when public funds are involved. The court also noted that even if such an agreement did exist, it would be void due to its contingent nature - essentially meaning payments depended on successful recovery which is not permissible under law.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Florida on the Relation of Wailes v. Croom, Comptroller of the State of Florida, 1912, Justice Holmes argued that there was a valid contract between Mr. Wailes and the state which should be honored. He disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation that no enforceable agreement existed due to lack of explicit legislative approval in this particular instance. In his view, it was clear from historical practices and implicit understanding that such contracts were routinely made without specific legislative authorization; hence they were not invalid or unenforceable simply because they lacked express statutory endorsement. Furthermore, he contended that even if one accepted their premise about necessity for explicit approval by legislature (which he did not), still there had been sufficient ratification through subsequent actions by various state officials who acted upon and benefited from Mr.Wailes's services under said contract over many years before repudiating it.