In the case of Caledonian Coal Company v. Baker in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving coal mining rights and land ownership. The plaintiff, Caledonian Coal Company, claimed that it had purchased certain lands from one William H. Watson with an understanding that these lands contained valuable coal deposits which they intended to mine for profit. However, after purchasing the land and beginning their operations, they discovered that a significant portion of this coal was located beneath adjacent property owned by defendant John W. Baker who refused to allow them access to it. The court held in favor of Mr.Baker stating that while there may have been some confusion or misunderstanding about exactly where the boundary lines were drawn between these two properties when Mr.Watson sold his land to Caledonian Coal Co., once those boundaries were established as fact under law then any resources found within those boundaries belonged exclusively to whoever owned said property at time such resources were discovered regardless if previous owner might have mistakenly believed otherwise when he made sale. Therefore even though Caledonian Coal Co.'s purchase agreement with Mr.Watson may have led them believe they would be acquiring more than what they actually did end up getting due this error regarding exact location of boundary line separating their respective properties; nonetheless since all legal requirements for valid transfer title over real estate had been met during transaction between both parties involved here therefore court could not now intervene retroactively change outcome based upon subsequent discovery mistake made by seller concerning extent his own holdings prior

The dissenting opinion in the Caledonian Coal Company v. Baker case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding employer liability for employee injuries. The dissent contended that an employer should not be held liable for accidents resulting from risks inherent to a job, unless it can be proven that they were negligent or failed to provide safe working conditions. In this case, there was no evidence of negligence on part of the coal company; hence, it should not have been held responsible for Baker’s injury caused by falling slate in its mine. Furthermore, according to the dissenters' view, employees are aware of such occupational hazards when they accept employment and their consent implies assumption of these risks as part of their contract with employers.