In Mining Company v. Consolidated Mining Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a mining company had the right to mine on a certain parcel of land. The mining company had obtained a patent from the United States government for the land, but the Consolidated Mining Company claimed that it had a prior right to mine on the land. The Supreme Court held that the mining company had the right to mine on the land. The Court found that the patent granted by the United States government was valid and that the Consolidated Mining Company had no prior right to mine on the land. The Court also held that the Consolidated Mining Company was not entitled to any compensation for the mining company's use of the land. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the Consolidated Mining Company had failed to prove that it had a prior right to mine on the land. The Court also noted that the Consolidated Mining Company had failed to take any action to protect its rights to the land. As a result, the Court held that the mining company had the right to mine on the land and that the Consolidated Mining Company was not entitled to any compensation.

In the case of Mining Company v. Consolidated Mining Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to relief from the defendant’s alleged infringement of their mining rights. He reasoned that since both parties had acquired valid mining claims on public lands and were thus equally entitled to pursue them, it would be unjust for one party to interfere with another's claim without just cause or legal authority. Furthermore, he noted that while Congress has granted exclusive rights over certain minerals within certain boundaries, this did not apply in this instance as neither party had obtained such an exclusive right from Congress prior to commencing operations on their respective claims. As such, Justice Field concluded that allowing either party to interfere with the other’s claim would be contrary to law and justice and should not be allowed by any court of equity or law.