In the case of Chappell Chemical and Fertilizer Company v. Sulphur Mines Company in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over sulfur mining rights. The Sulphur Mines Company had leased land to the Chappell Chemical and Fertilizer Company for sulfur extraction but later claimed that Chappell had extracted more sulphur than agreed upon in their contract. In response, Chappell argued that they were entitled to all sulphur found on or under the property as per Louisiana law at that time which stated "to whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to a certain extent what is above and below it." However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts leading up to appeal before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sulphur Mines Co., stating that while generally one who leases land has right to minerals underneath it unless expressly reserved by lessor; however, when lease provides for payment based on amount of mineral removed from ground (royalty), then lessee's right is limited only upto quantity specified within agreement terms. This decision established an important precedent regarding interpretation of contracts involving mineral rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Chappell Chemical and Fertilizer Company v. Sulphur Mines Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny a patent infringement claim on grounds of prior use was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove prior use of the patented process by others before its invention by Mr. Herman Frasch, who had assigned his rights to Sulphur Mines Company. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of testimony in determining whether or not there had been public use or sale more than two years before application for patent as required under law at that time (Rev Stat § 4886). Furthermore, they contended that even if there were instances of similar processes being used earlier, these were isolated experiments rather than established practices and should therefore not invalidate Frasch’s patent claims.