In the case of Black v. Elkhorn Mining Company (1895), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elkhorn Mining Company, dismissing a claim by Black who alleged that he was entitled to royalties from mining operations conducted on his land. The court found that while there had been an agreement between both parties for payment of royalties, this agreement was not legally binding as it did not meet certain requirements under Kentucky law. Specifically, it lacked consideration - a necessary element for contract formation - because Black did not offer anything of value in return for the royalty payments promised by Elkhorn Mining Company. Furthermore, even if such consideration existed and a valid contract had been formed, any breach would have occurred more than five years prior to filing suit which exceeded Kentucky's statute of limitations period applicable to written contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Black v. Elkhorn Mining Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider the full implications of its ruling on property rights and contracts. He contended that by allowing a mining company to divert water from one person's land without their consent, they were effectively permitting an infringement upon private property rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Kentucky law regarding water usage in coal mines and believed that this misinterpretation led them to wrongly decide in favor of Elkhorn Mining Company. He also expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially disrupt established contractual agreements between parties concerning water use or other resources tied to land ownership.