In the Bunt v. Sierra Butte Gold Mining Company case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sierra Butte Gold Mining Company. The dispute arose when a miner named Bunt claimed that he had been unlawfully evicted from his mining claim by the company and sought compensation for damages. However, it was found that Bunt's original claim to the land did not comply with federal law as he failed to perform $100 worth of labor on his claim each year, which is required under an 1866 statute governing mining claims on public lands. Therefore, his rights were forfeited due to non-compliance with this requirement and passed onto those who subsequently occupied and worked upon it - in this case, Sierra Butte Gold Mining Company. Thus, since they complied with all legal requirements necessary for maintaining their own valid title over these lands including performing annual labor worth $100 or more per annum; they were deemed rightful owners by court ruling against Mr.Bunt's appeal.

In the dissenting opinion for Bunt v. Sierra Butte Gold Mining Company, the justice argued that a contract made in one state should not be voided by another state's laws unless it is immoral or against public policy. The case involved a California mining company and an Idaho resident who had purchased shares of stock from the company. The majority ruled that because selling stocks was illegal under Idaho law at the time, even though it was legal in California where the transaction took place, this rendered any contracts related to such transactions null and void. However, according to dissenting views, there were no moral issues or matters of public policy involved here; rather it was simply a matter of differing business regulations between states. Therefore, they believed that enforcing Idaho’s law overrules principles of interstate commerce and contradicts constitutional provisions regarding full faith and credit among states.