In the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Ferris in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights. The railway company had been granted a tract of land by Congress to build its railroad but later sold part of it to Ferris. However, when oil was discovered on this piece of land, the railway company claimed that they only intended to sell surface rights and not mineral rights beneath it. They argued that their original grant from Congress did not include these mineral rights so they could not have transferred them to Ferris. The court disagreed with this argument stating that once the government grants lands as an inducement for building railroads or other public improvements, those lands become private property subject to state law unless there is explicit reservation or exception made in federal statute regarding specific resources like minerals or oil. Therefore, since no such exception existed in this case and under Texas law (where the disputed land was located), selling real estate includes both surface and subsurface elements unless explicitly stated otherwise; hence Ferris owned both surface and mineral rights on his purchased plot.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Ferris argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to provide equal facilities for all passengers regardless of race was an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that this issue should be left up to individual states or railroad companies rather than being mandated by federal law. They also expressed concern about potential negative economic impacts on railway companies due to increased costs associated with providing separate but equal accommodations for different races. Additionally, they questioned whether such laws truly promoted equality or simply perpetuated racial segregation and discrimination under the guise of fairness.