In the case of Eames v. Kaiser in 1891, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mining rights in California. The plaintiff, Eames, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property by the defendant, Kaiser. He sought to recover possession as well as damages for its unlawful detention. However, Kaiser argued that he was entitled to mine on this land under an act passed by Congress which allowed individuals to explore and purchase mineral lands within public territories. The court ruled against Eames' claim stating that although he held title deeds for surface rights of the disputed property; it did not include subsurface or mineral rights since those were governed separately under federal law which superseded state laws regarding such matters. Therefore, despite owning surface rights through his patent from government grant (which usually conveys both surface and subsurface), because this particular parcel fell within federally designated 'mineral lands', only specific mineral patents could convey mining privileges - something Eames lacked but Kaiser possessed due to compliance with relevant statutes including performing requisite amount of labor/improvements on said minerals annually.

In the dissenting opinion for Eames v. Kaiser, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Kaiser contradicted established legal principles regarding property rights and contracts. The dissenting justices believed that Eames had a valid claim to the disputed land based on an agreement he made with its previous owner, which should have been honored despite subsequent changes in ownership. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and case law, arguing that these sources supported Eames' position rather than Kaiser's. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications of this ruling for future cases involving similar issues.