In the 1900 U.S. Supreme Court case Bradshaw v. Ashley, the court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Bradshaw, had purchased mining property from Ashley with an agreement that if he discovered any valuable minerals within a certain period of time, he would pay additional money to Ashley. However, after discovering gold on the property but failing to make further payments as agreed upon in their contract due to financial difficulties, Ashley sued for breach of contract and sought repossession of the mine. The lower courts sided with Ashley; however, when appealed by Bradshaw at the Supreme Court level it was determined that while there was indeed a breach of contract by not making further payment after discovery of gold - this did not automatically entitle Ashely to reclaim possession over said lands or mines under common law principles. Instead they held that such remedy should be limited only where it is explicitly stated so in contracts (which wasn't present here). Therefore reversing previous judgments favoring Ashely's claim for reclamation based solely on non-payment grounds without explicit contractual provision allowing same.

The dissenting opinion in the Bradshaw v. Ashley case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings of the court. The dissent believed that a state has no power to regulate commerce between states, as this is an exclusive federal power under the Constitution. They contended that any attempt by a state to impose taxes or fees on interstate commerce would be unconstitutional, even if it were disguised as a regulation for public health or safety purposes. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "commerce," arguing that it should include all aspects of trade and business transactions, not just physical goods crossing state lines. This broader definition would mean that many more activities are protected from state interference under the Commerce Clause than what was acknowledged by the majority ruling.