The Crescent Mining Company v. Wasatch Mining Company case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over mining rights and property boundaries between the two companies. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not the lower court had erred in its decision regarding these disputes, which included issues of vein apex ownership and extralateral right (the right to mine an ore vein on another's property if it extends from one's own). The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court had indeed made errors in its judgment. It clarified that under federal law, when a mineral deposit crosses into another person’s land underground, only the owner of where the deposit originates has exclusive rights to extract minerals from it; this is known as 'apex rule'. Therefore, even though part of a lode extended into Wasatch’s ground from Crescent’s claim above surface level (apex), only Crescent could legally mine there. This ruling established important precedents for future cases involving mining laws and property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Crescent Mining Company v. Wasatch Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff, Crescent Mining Company, had not adequately proven its right to relief or demonstrated any actual injury caused by Wasatch Mining Company's actions. They contended that a mere possibility of future harm should not be sufficient grounds for granting an injunction against Wasatch. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of mining laws and regulations in relation to property rights disputes between adjacent mine owners. In their view, these laws were intended to encourage productive use of mineral resources rather than facilitate litigation over boundary disputes.