The McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Company case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over the ownership and rights to coal deposits found under land owned by the Pennsylvania Canal Company. The plaintiff, McCreary, claimed that he had purchased mining rights from a previous owner of the property before it was sold to the canal company. However, when he attempted to exercise these rights, he was denied access by the canal company who asserted their own claim on any minerals found beneath their property. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCreary stating that his purchase agreement with the original owner did indeed grant him exclusive mining rights regardless of subsequent changes in surface ownership. This ruling established an important precedent for future cases involving mineral rights disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against McCreary was incorrect. He contended that there were significant errors in both fact and law made by the lower courts which should have been corrected by the Supreme Court. Specifically, he disagreed with their interpretation of an 1857 contract between McCreary and another company regarding land rights; he believed this contract gave him rightful ownership over certain properties involved in this case. Furthermore, Justice Brewer criticized how evidence was handled during trial proceedings, suggesting it had unfairly disadvantaged McCreary’s defense. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential implications of upholding such flawed rulings on future cases involving similar issues.