In the case of Cooper v. Dobson in 1894, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Cooper, claimed that he had purchased land from a man named Smith who had previously bought it from Dobson. However, Dobson argued that his sale to Smith only included surface rights and not any underlying minerals or resources. The court ruled in favor of Cooper stating that unless explicitly stated otherwise in the deed of sale, selling property includes both surface and subsurface rights by default under common law principles. Therefore, since there was no explicit reservation of mineral rights when Dobson sold to Smith initially; those rights were transferred as well along with the property itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Cooper v. Dobson, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases and failed to properly interpret relevant laws. He contended that a patentee who sells an article without restriction cannot later claim infringement if the buyer uses or sells it in its original form. The majority's ruling, he believed, would unjustly limit trade and commerce by allowing patentees to control not only their own sales but also subsequent sales of their products by others. This could potentially lead to monopolistic practices and stifle competition in various industries. Furthermore, Justice Brewer disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "repair" vs "reconstruction," arguing that replacing worn-out parts should be considered repair rather than reconstruction which infringes upon a patent right.