In the case of Belknap v. Schild, a dispute arose over mining rights in California. The plaintiff, Belknap, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owners who had obtained it under an 1866 federal law allowing for private acquisition of mineral-rich public lands. However, before this purchase was made official by patenting (a process to legally recognize ownership), another party named Schild began mining on the property and refused to leave when asked by Belknap. In response to this refusal, Belknap sued for ejectment (removal). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schild stating that until a claimant received their patent confirming legal title to land under federal mining laws; other miners could enter upon it if they believed it was vacant and unclaimed territory without being considered trespassers or liable for damages unless they refused to leave after demand made by the rightful owner with proof of his claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Belknap v. Schild, 1895, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply existing laws related to mining claims on public lands. The dissenting justices believed that a miner who had made improvements on a claim should be entitled to compensation if another party subsequently proved superior title. They contended that this principle was supported by both common law and specific provisions of federal mining legislation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "adverse possession," arguing instead that such possession did not need to be hostile or under color of title in order for an occupant to have rights against subsequent claimants. In their view, any person who occupied and improved land in good faith should have some protection against later-arriving parties.