In Farnham v. United States (1915), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving land ownership and mining rights in Alaska. The plaintiff, Farnham, claimed that he had acquired certain lands under the provisions of an Act of Congress which allowed citizens to purchase up to 160 acres for agricultural purposes. However, it was later discovered that these lands contained valuable coal deposits. The government argued that since the primary value of this land was from its mineral resources rather than agriculture, it should not have been sold under the Agricultural Entry Act but instead should be governed by mining laws. The court ruled against Farnham stating that if a piece of public land is known or suspected to contain valuable minerals at the time it is entered as an agricultural claim then such entry is void even if no actual discovery has yet been made on said property; thus making his purchase invalid because they were primarily valuable for their coal deposits and not for farming purposes as required by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Farnham v. United States, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case which raised doubts about its validity. They also took issue with how certain pieces of evidence were handled during trial, arguing that they had been improperly admitted or interpreted by the court. Furthermore, they felt that some elements of the crime as defined by law had not been sufficiently proven against Farnham. Therefore, according to these justices' interpretation of legal principles and standards, he should have been acquitted instead.