In the case of Johnson v. Mueser (1908), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Missouri. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under an 1866 Act of Congress which granted lands to states for railroad construction purposes. However, these lands were already occupied by settlers including Mueser, who had purchased them from other settlers or their successors and held patents issued by the United States government recognizing their title. The court ruled in favor of Mueser and others like him on grounds that they were bona fide purchasers without notice of any adverse claim when they bought their properties; therefore they could not be deprived of it even if there was a mistake made by government officials issuing patents to them instead of granting it for railroads as per Congressional act.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson v. Mueser argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. The dissent contended that, under Missouri law, an individual who purchases property with notice of an existing lease has no right to evict the tenant before the expiration of their lease term. They believed this principle should have been applied in this case as well, despite it involving a mining lease rather than residential or commercial property. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "waste" within mining leases - arguing that normal extraction operations shouldn't be considered waste unless expressly stated so in contract terms. Therefore, according to them, Johnson had not committed waste by continuing his mining operations after selling his land rights to Mueser and thus he couldn't be evicted on these grounds either.