In Mining Company v. Tarbet, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a mining company had the right to mine on land owned by a private individual. The mining company had obtained a patent from the United States government for the land in question, but the private individual argued that the patent was invalid because it had been obtained without his consent. The Supreme Court held that the patent was valid and that the mining company had the right to mine on the land. The Court reasoned that the patent was valid because it had been obtained in accordance with the laws of the United States, and that the private individual had no right to prevent the mining company from using the land. The Court also held that the private individual was not entitled to any compensation for the use of the land, as the patent had been obtained in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the mining company had the right to mine on the land in question, and that the private individual was not entitled to any compensation for the use of the land. The Court's decision established that the patent was valid and that the mining company had the right to use the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Mining Company v. Tarbet, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and failed to consider important facts of the case. He argued that while it is true that a mining company has no right to enter upon another's land without permission, this does not mean they have no rights at all when it comes to minerals on their own property which may extend beyond its boundaries. In this case, he argued that there were two distinct parcels of land owned by different parties and thus each party had exclusive rights over their respective properties; however, due to an error in surveying one parcel extended into part of the other parcel creating a dispute between them as far as who owns what portion of mineral resources found within both parcels. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that since these two parcels were separate entities before any survey errors occurred then each should be allowed exclusive control over whatever minerals are found within their respective portions regardless if some overlap exists due to surveying mistakes or otherwise.