In the case of Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company v. United States, 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a mining company had unlawfully cut down trees on government land without permission. The Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company argued that they were entitled to use timber from public lands for their mining operations under an existing law which allowed miners to freely use timber for their activities. However, the court ruled against them stating that this privilege only applied if there were no adverse claims on the land in question at the time when it was used by miners. In this instance, as there had been a pre-existing claim by another party before Bunker Hill began its operations; hence they could not avail themselves of such privileges under said law. Therefore, cutting down trees constituted trespassing and damage to property owned by others (the US Government), making them liable for damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the mining law in question. He argued that it was not intended to grant exclusive rights over water sources to miners who were first to discover them, but rather aimed at promoting fair competition among all miners. According to him, a miner could only claim as much water as he needed for his own operations and had no right to prevent others from using any surplus. Therefore, he believed that Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company did not have an exclusive right over the disputed water source simply because they were its first users; other companies should also be allowed access if there was enough supply left after meeting their needs.