In the 1892 case Glenn v. Garth, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Glenn, claimed that he had purchased land from Garth with an agreement that included all minerals beneath it. However, when coal was discovered on the property years later, Garth asserted his right to mine it based on a state law which held that unless explicitly stated otherwise in a deed of sale or lease contract, mineral rights remained with the original owner. The court sided with Glenn stating that since there were no reservations made about retaining any such rights at time of purchase by him from Garth; hence they passed onto him alongwith surface rights as per common law principles applicable then for conveyance of real estate properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Glenn v. Garth, Justice Brewer argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it was a matter of state law and did not involve any federal questions. He contended that the majority's decision to hear the case was based on an incorrect interpretation of previous rulings which had allowed federal courts to intervene in cases involving property rights disputes under certain circumstances. According to Justice Brewer, these precedents were irrelevant because they involved situations where there was a clear violation of constitutional rights or where state laws conflicted with federal legislation - conditions which he believed were not met in this instance. Therefore, he concluded that by deciding on matters outside its purview, the Supreme Court risked undermining states' sovereignty and disrupting balance between different levels of government.