In the case of King v. Panther Lumber Company, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over timber rights in West Virginia. The plaintiff, James S. King, had purchased land from an individual who had previously sold his timber rights to another party - the defendant Panther Lumber Company. When Panther began logging operations on this land, King sued them for trespassing and sought damages for trees cut down by them. The court ruled in favor of Panther Lumber Company stating that they were not guilty of trespassing as they held valid timber rights to the property which was bought before Mr.King's purchase of said property. It was determined that these rights were transferred along with ownership changes unless explicitly stated otherwise in sales contracts. This ruling clarified legal principles regarding transferable resource extraction rights and emphasized their importance within real estate transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of KING v. PANTHER LUMBER COMPANY, 1897 argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of contract law and an overreach into state jurisdiction. The dissenters believed that King had not breached his contract with Panther Lumber Company because he did not explicitly agree to deliver logs at a specific time or place; rather, he agreed to cut and stack them for pickup by Panther. They also disagreed with the majority's assertion that King owed damages for failing to fulfill this agreement, arguing instead that any loss incurred due to delays in delivery should be borne by Panther as part of its business risk. Furthermore, they contended that it was inappropriate for federal courts to intervene in what they saw as a matter best left up to individual states' interpretation and enforcement of their own laws governing contracts and commercial transactions.