The Hollins v. Brierfield Coal and Iron Company case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over property rights to coal deposits beneath the surface of land owned by Hollins. The Brierfield Coal and Iron Company had leased adjacent land, which contained an entrance to a mine that extended under both properties. When the company began extracting coal from beneath Hollin's property without his consent, he sued for trespassing and sought compensation for damages. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that he did not own any part of the minerals underneath his property unless explicitly stated in his deed or lease agreement with specific language referring to mineral rights. This ruling established precedent regarding subsurface mineral rights ownership; it clarified that owning surface land does not automatically grant one ownership of underground resources unless specifically stipulated.

In the dissenting opinion for Hollins v. Brierfield Coal and Iron Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a key distinction between tangible and intangible property rights. He contended that while physical possession of an object can be forcibly taken away, ownership cannot be transferred without consent or due process of law. In this case, he believed that although Hollins had physically seized control of the coal mine in question during a time when its actual owner (Brierfield) was unable to exercise its rights due to war conditions, this did not mean Hollins had legally acquired ownership over it. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which denied Brierfield any compensation from profits made by Hollins during his unauthorized use of their property on grounds that they were absent owners at wartime; instead arguing they should have been entitled to recover such earnings as rightful owners who were temporarily dispossessed through no fault of their own.