The Brainerd, Shaler & Hall Quarry Company v. Brice case in 1918 revolved around a dispute over the ownership and use of land for quarrying purposes. The plaintiff, Brainerd, Shaler & Hall Quarry Company claimed that they had been granted rights to quarry stone from certain lands by the original owner. However, after the death of this owner (Van Schaick), his executor (Brice) contested these rights arguing that no such agreement existed or was legally binding. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant (Brice). They found insufficient evidence to support the claim made by Brainerd, Shaler & Hall Quarry Company about their alleged right to extract stone from Van Schaick's property based on an oral contract with him during his lifetime.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brainerd, Shaler & Hall Quarry Company v. Brice argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply Connecticut law regarding property rights. The dissent contended that under Connecticut law, a landowner has exclusive rights over their property up to the sky above and down to the center of Earth below unless explicitly limited by statute or contract. Therefore, when Van Schaick sold his surface rights but retained mineral rights underneath, he did not forfeit his right to access those minerals via any reasonable means necessary - including drilling through the surface layer owned by another party. The majority's ruling effectively rendered Van Schaick’s mineral ownership useless as he could not reasonably access them without trespassing on someone else’s land which contradicts with established principles of property law in Connecticut according to this view.