In the case of McCaffrey v. Manogue, 1904, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining claims in Nevada. The plaintiff, McCaffrey, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his mining claim by the defendant, Manogue. He sought to regain possession and recover damages for ore removed from the mine during his dispossession. However, it was found that both parties were aware of an existing defect in their title due to a prior unpatented claim on the land by another party at the time they entered into their agreement regarding ownership and operation of this mine. Therefore neither could have expected absolute security or permanency in their possession or use of these premises under such circumstances. The court ruled against McCaffrey stating that even if there was unlawful dispossession as alleged by him; he would not be entitled to recover any part of profits derived from working this mine because both parties knew about potential risks associated with defective title when they made arrangements concerning its exploitation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of MCCAFFREY v. MANOGUE argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Nevada law allowing for mining companies to divert water from public streams was incorrect. The dissent contended that this ruling violated private property rights, as it allowed corporations to take resources without compensation or due process. They believed that such an action contradicted both state and federal constitutions, which protect individuals against unlawful seizure of their property by others, including businesses. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "beneficial use" within water laws; arguing instead that beneficial use should not be interpreted so broadly as to allow for corporate exploitation at the expense of individual rights and environmental sustainability.