In the case of Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company v. Patten Paper Company, 1898, the U.S Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a contract for water power rights violated antitrust laws. The Patten Paper Company had entered into an agreement with the Canal company which granted them exclusive rights to use certain water powers in exchange for annual payments. However, this arrangement was challenged as being monopolistic and contrary to public policy. The court ruled that such contracts did not violate any law or public policy as long as they were reasonable and did not restrain trade or commerce unduly. It held that every contract by which one party binds himself not to use his property in competition with another is necessarily a restraint of trade but it does not follow that it contravenes public policy unless its effect be to throttle competition, create monopoly and control prices so as directly and materially restrict free commerce among states.

In the dissenting opinion for Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company v. Patten Paper Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights of riparian owners and their entitlements under common law principles. The dissenting justices contended that these landowners should have a right to use water from adjacent bodies without interference, as long as such usage does not harm or diminish others' ability to do so. They believed that this principle should apply even when there are artificial changes in water levels due to human intervention like dam construction. In their view, any damage caused by such alterations should be compensated by those responsible for them rather than being borne by innocent parties who merely exercise their lawful rights over adjoining waters.