Hammer v. Garfield Mining and Milling Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1924. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hammer, and the defendant, Garfield Mining and Milling Company, over a contract for the sale of coal. Hammer had contracted to purchase coal from Garfield, but Garfield failed to deliver the coal as promised. Hammer sued Garfield for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Hammer was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that Hammer had been damaged by the breach, and that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the contract price and the market price of the coal at the time of the breach. The Court also held that Hammer was entitled to interest on the damages from the date of the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Hammer was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the contract price and the market price of the coal at the time of the breach, plus interest from the date of the breach.

In the dissenting opinion for Hammer v. Garfield Mining and Mill Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a technicality rather than an examination of the facts of the case. He noted that while it is true that Hammer did not have a valid lease to mine coal from Garfield's land, he had been mining there for over 20 years with their knowledge and consent. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if Hammer did not have a valid lease, his actions still constituted adverse possession which would give him title to the property after seven years of continuous use. Therefore, Holmes concluded that since Hammer had been using this land for more than twenty years without any interference from Garfield or anyone else, he should be granted title to it regardless of whether or not he held a valid lease at one point in time.