In Glacier Mountain Silver Mining Company v. Willis, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a mining company had the right to mine on land that was owned by a private individual. The mining company had obtained a patent from the United States government for the land, but the individual claimed that he had prior rights to the land. The Court held that the mining company did not have the right to mine on the land because the individual had prior rights to the land. The Court reasoned that the patent granted by the United States government was not sufficient to override the individual's prior rights to the land. The Court also noted that the individual had been in possession of the land for a long period of time and had made improvements to the land. The Court concluded that the mining company did not have the right to mine on the land and that the individual had prior rights to the land. The Court held that the patent granted by the United States government was not sufficient to override the individual's prior rights to the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Glacier Mountain Silver Mining Company v. Willis, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of Nevada state law and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under Nevada law, a mining company could not acquire title to land by locating a claim on it unless they had first obtained permission from the owner or their agent. The majority held that this requirement did not apply when there were no visible signs of ownership on the surface of the land; however, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued that such a rule would be unfair because it allowed miners to take advantage of owners who may have been unaware or unable to protect their property rights due to lack of knowledge about mining laws or other circumstances beyond their control. Furthermore, he noted that if miners were able to locate claims without obtaining prior consent from landowners then they could potentially deprive them of valuable mineral resources without any compensation whatsoever. In his view, allowing such behavior would create an incentive for unscrupulous individuals looking for easy profits at someone else’s expense and should thus be prohibited by law as being contrary both public policy and justice itself.