In the case of Charles A. Williamson and Catharine H. Williamson, his wife, Rupert J. Cochran and Isabella M., his wife, and Bayard Clarke v George Ball, the plaintiffs brought a suit against Ball for damages due to an alleged breach of contract in which he had agreed to convey certain real estate to them but failed to do so as promised. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence that any such agreement existed between the parties or that it was ever intended by either party at any time prior to its filing in court; therefore they held that the complaint must be dismissed with costs assessed against the plaintiffs. Furthermore, since there were no facts presented from which it could be determined whether or not a valid contract existed between them before this action commenced, they concluded that neither party should bear responsibility for their respective losses resulting from this dispute over real estate ownership rights.

In the dissenting opinion of Charles A. Williamson and Catharine H. Williamson, Rupert J. Cochran and Isabella M., his wife, and Bayard Clarke v George Ball, Justice Catron argued that the Court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs due to their claim being a valid one under Tennessee law at the time it was filed. He noted that while there were some technical issues with how they had framed their complaint, these did not invalidate its merits or bar them from recovering damages for breach of contract against Ball as he had failed to fulfill his obligations under said contract. Furthermore, Catron argued that even if there were errors in how they presented their case before court this should not be used as grounds to deny them justice since any such mistakes could easily have been remedied by allowing an amendment to be made during trial proceedings without prejudice towards either party involved in this dispute.