In the case of Lumber Company v. Buchtel, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a lumber company was entitled to a lien on a house that had been built with its lumber. The lumber company had supplied the lumber to the builder, who had agreed to pay for it upon completion of the house. The builder had not paid for the lumber, and the lumber company sought to enforce its lien on the house. The Supreme Court held that the lumber company was entitled to a lien on the house. The Court reasoned that the builder had agreed to pay for the lumber upon completion of the house, and that the lumber company had a right to enforce its lien on the house in order to secure payment. The Court also noted that the builder had not paid for the lumber, and that the lumber company had a right to protect its interests. The Court thus held that the lumber company was entitled to a lien on the house, and that the builder was liable for the cost of the lumber. This decision established that a lumber company is entitled to a lien on a house that has been built with its lumber, and that the builder is liable for the cost of the lumber.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lumber Company v. Buchtel, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of property could recover damages for its loss even if it had not yet paid for the property at issue. The majority held otherwise, finding that since no money had changed hands between the parties before possession was taken away from plaintiff lumber company by defendant Buchtel, there could be no recovery because there was nothing tangible which plaintiff could point to as having been lost or damaged due to defendant's wrongful act. Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning and found instead that when one is deprived of something they have rightfully acquired but not yet paid for - such as timber cut down on their own land - they are still entitled to compensation regardless of whether any money has exchanged hands between them and another party.