In the case of Johnston v. Standard Mining Company, 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a mining company had unlawfully trespassed on another's property and extracted valuable ore. The plaintiff, Johnston, alleged that Standard Mining Company had intentionally mined into his land from their adjoining mine and removed large quantities of rich silver ore without his consent or knowledge. He sought compensation for damages incurred due to this trespassing activity. The court ruled in favor of Johnston after examining evidence presented by both parties which included maps showing underground workings and expert testimonies regarding mining practices at that time period. It held that it is unlawful to enter upon another’s premises without permission even if done through subterranean channels as in this case where tunnels were dug beneath surface boundaries separating properties owned by different individuals or entities. Furthermore, the court also established an important legal principle concerning burden of proof in such cases: once a plaintiff proves initial wrongful entry (trespass) by defendant onto his/her property; any subsequent extraction activities are presumed illegal unless proven otherwise by defendant who bears responsibility for demonstrating they did not exceed limits set during original unauthorized intrusion.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnston v. Standard Mining Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Standard Mining was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law. He believed that when Johnston sold his mining claim to Standard Mining, he did so under an agreement which stipulated certain conditions and payments over time. When these were not met by the company, Johnston had every right to reclaim ownership as per their initial agreement. The majority's interpretation effectively nullified this contractual understanding between parties and set a dangerous precedent where companies could avoid fulfilling their obligations without any repercussions. Furthermore, Justice Brewer emphasized on respecting state laws regarding property rights and contracts rather than overriding them with federal interpretations or rulings.