In the case of Brooklyn Mining and Milling Company v. Miller in 1912, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a mining company had rightful ownership over certain mineral-rich lands in Idaho. The dispute arose when both parties claimed to have located valuable minerals on the same land under different laws - one under placer mining law and another under lode mining law. The court ruled that regardless of which type of claim was made first, it is ultimately the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit that determines rights to possession and enjoyment. In this instance, Miller's lode location took precedence as he discovered gold-bearing quartz after his initial filing for placer claims but before Brooklyn Mining filed their own claim on these grounds. Therefore, even though Brooklyn Mining staked their claim earlier than Miller did his amended filing for lode claims, they were not entitled to any part of the vein or ledge from which he extracted ore because they failed to discover it themselves.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brooklyn Mining and Milling Company v. Miller argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. The dissent pointed out that the plaintiff, Miller, had not shown any evidence to prove his claim of ownership over a certain mining property. Instead, he relied solely on an unverified report from a surveyor who did not have firsthand knowledge about the matter at hand. Furthermore, it was noted that there were several inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this report which should have been enough to discredit its reliability as evidence for Miller's claim. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, it would be unjust to award him ownership based purely on such weak grounds without requiring further proof or investigation into his claims.