In the case of Mammoth Mining Company v. Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company, 1893, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mammoth Mining Co., reversing a lower court's decision. The dispute centered around a contract for machinery that was to be delivered by Salt Lake Foundry to Mammoth Mining. However, due to delays caused by unforeseen circumstances such as labor strikes and material shortages, Salt Lake Foundry failed to deliver on time which led them into breach of contract according to Mammoth Mining Co.. The Supreme Court held that these were not valid excuses under the legal doctrine of "impossibility," stating that they should have been foreseen and accounted for in their agreement. Therefore, it was determined that Salt Lake Foundry had indeed breached its contractual obligations with damages awarded accordingly.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mammoth Mining Company v. Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Utah law, which they believed allowed for liens to be placed on mining property for work done at the mine site. They contended that this interpretation was consistent with previous rulings by both state and federal courts, as well as with general principles of lien law. The dissent also criticized the majority's reliance on technicalities regarding how notice had been given about the lien claim, arguing that these should not have been decisive factors in determining whether or not a valid lien existed. Finally, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on laborers who might be discouraged from working at mines if their wages could not be secured through liens.