In the case of Mammoth Mining Company v. Grand Central Mining Company in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over mining rights. The Mammoth Mining Company had claimed that it owned certain veins or lodes of mineral-bearing rock within its land boundaries and accused Grand Central Mining Company of trespassing on their property to extract these minerals. However, the court ruled in favor of Grand Central based on an interpretation of federal law which stated that ownership rights for underground minerals belonged to whoever first discovered them, regardless if they were located beneath someone else's land surface. This ruling upheld previous decisions made by lower courts and established important precedents regarding property rights for sub-surface resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Mammoth Mining Company v. Grand Central Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply established principles of mining law. The dissent emphasized that a miner who first discovers a lode has exclusive rights to it and any veins leading from it, even if they extend beneath another's claim. This principle is based on the idea that one should benefit from their labor and discovery, not merely from staking a claim over land. In this case, Mammoth had discovered and developed the vein before Grand Central made its surface location; thus according to these principles, Mammoth should retain rights to mine there despite part of vein extending into Grand Central’s territory above ground level (apex). The dissent also criticized how evidence was handled in lower courts which led them incorrectly ruling in favor of Grand Central without considering all relevant facts about initial discovery by Mammoth.