The U.S. Supreme Court case Danciger and Emerich Oil Company v. Smith in 1927 revolved around a dispute over oil rights on land located in Texas. The plaintiff, Danciger and Emerich Oil Company, claimed that they had purchased the mineral rights to this property from its original owner before it was sold to the defendant, Smith. However, when the sale of the land occurred between these two parties, there was no explicit mention or reservation of these mineral rights within their transaction documents. Therefore, Smith argued that he owned all aspects of his newly acquired property including any potential oil reserves beneath it as per standard conveyance laws at that time which stated "all minerals" were included unless specifically excluded in writing during a sale agreement. The court ruled against Danciger and Emerich Oil Company stating that since there wasn't an express reservation made for these mineral rights during their initial purchase agreement with the previous owner nor mentioned explicitly while selling to Mr.Smith; hence they could not claim them now after having sold off this piece of land entirely without any such reservations.

In the dissenting opinion for Danciger and Emerich Oil Company v. Smith, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the oil company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in how evidence had been interpreted and applied by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court Justices. They contended that these mistakes led to an unjust outcome for Danciger and Emerich Oil Company, who they felt should not have been held liable for damages caused by oil seepage onto neighboring properties. In their view, this case raised important questions about property rights and environmental responsibility which had not been adequately addressed or resolved in favor of justice.