In the 1914 case of Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Company, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and contract law. The plaintiff, Kinney, had entered into an agreement with the defendant company to raise squabs (young pigeons) for them using their provided birds and equipment in exchange for half of all profits made from selling these squabs. However, when he decided to terminate this arrangement due to dissatisfaction with his earnings under it, he was sued by the company who claimed ownership over both the remaining unsold squabs as well as those already sold but not yet paid for by customers. The court ruled in favor of Kinney stating that since there was no explicit provision within their contract regarding termination or what would happen upon such eventuality; therefore it could be inferred that upon termination each party would retain whatever they currently possessed - meaning that any unsold or unpaid-for squabs were rightfully owned by him.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Company argued that the majority's decision to hold the defendant liable for damages was incorrect. The dissent believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the defendant, and therefore they should not be held responsible for any harm caused by their pigeons. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of property rights, arguing that a person does not have an absolute right to use their property without interference from others' animals unless those animals cause substantial damage or pose a significant nuisance. In this case, they did not believe such conditions were met and thus felt it unjustified to penalize Plymouth Rock Squab Company.