In the case of Mather v. Rillston in 1894, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mining rights. The plaintiff, Mather, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands under an act of Congress which granted alternate sections of public lands to aid in the construction of railroads. He also alleged that Rillston was unlawfully extracting valuable minerals from these lands without his consent or any legal right. However, it was found that at the time when Mather's predecessor attempted to select these lands as part of its grant from Congress, they were already reserved for another railroad company by a prior Act of Congress and thus could not be selected again under this later grant. Therefore, it was held that Mather did not have valid title to these disputed lands nor any cause against Rillston for trespassing and mining thereon.

The dissenting opinion in Mather v. Rillston argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the law. The justice disagreed with the court's interpretation of a statute, arguing that it should have been read more narrowly to exclude certain types of property from being considered as part of an estate for tax purposes. He also took issue with how the court applied precedent, suggesting they had cherry-picked cases to support their argument while ignoring others that contradicted it. Furthermore, he believed there were factual errors in how the case was presented and decided upon by his colleagues on bench which led them to reach an incorrect conclusion about who owed what amount under existing laws at that time period.