In the case of Camden v. Stuart in 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Camden, claimed that he had purchased mining property from Stuart under false pretenses as Stuart had misrepresented the value of its minerals. However, when it came to court, Justice Bradley found that there was no evidence to support this claim and stated that even if such misrepresentation occurred it would not be sufficient grounds for rescission unless fraud could be proven. Furthermore, Bradley noted that both parties were experienced miners who should have been aware of potential risks involved with their transaction and thus bore equal responsibility for any loss incurred due to miscalculations about the mine's worth or productivity. Therefore, the court dismissed Camden’s suit against Stuart.

In the dissenting opinion for Camden v. Stuart, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Stuart was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of property law. He contended that while an individual has rights over their own land, they do not have absolute control over everything above and below it. This includes minerals found beneath the surface which may extend into neighboring properties. The justice believed this principle should apply even if one party extracts those resources from their side without physically trespassing onto another's property. In his view, such extraction constitutes theft as it deprives the other owner of valuable assets rightfully belonging to them under common law principles governing shared resources like water or air space above properties. Therefore, he concluded that Camden had every right to sue Stuart for damages resulting from unauthorized coal mining activities on adjacent lands since these actions effectively amounted to stealing part of Camden’s mineral estate.