In the case of Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining and Land Company in 1903, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over mining rights. The two companies were contesting ownership of valuable mineral deposits located on overlapping land claims in Idaho. The court ruled that while both parties had valid claims to their respective properties, only one could possess the contested area where their interests overlapped - this right belonged to whoever staked claim first according to federal law governing mining disputes. In this instance, it was determined that Eli Mining and Land Company had established its claim before Clipper Mining Company did so they were awarded possession of the disputed territory.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining and Land Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider established principles of mining law. The dissenting justices believed that a miner who locally relocates his claim should not lose rights to any part of his original location unless it is clearly shown that he intended such abandonment. They contended that there was no evidence in this case indicating an intent by Clipper Mining Company to abandon its extralateral right under its original location when it relocated its mine. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling which favored Eli Mining and Land Company based on their interpretation of lode lines' relocation rules and regulations as per mining laws.