In the case of Munsey v. Clough in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights. The plaintiff, Munsey, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through purchase from individuals who had received patents for them from the United States government. He argued that these patents gave him exclusive right to mine valuable minerals found beneath the surface of these lands. However, defendant Clough contended that under Maine law at the time when these patents were issued (prior to 1847), only rights to surface land were conveyed by such grants while mineral rights remained with state ownership. The court held in favor of Clough's interpretation and stated that unless explicitly mentioned otherwise in patent documents or legislation at relevant times, subsurface mineral rights would not be assumed as granted along with surface property titles by default. Therefore it was concluded that Munsey did not have exclusive mining privileges over those properties despite his possession of their above-ground titles.

In the dissenting opinion for Munsey v. Clough, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of justice. He contended that a person who has been wrongfully evicted from their property should be able to recover damages for any loss they have suffered as a result, regardless of whether or not they were physically present on the property at the time of eviction. In this case, he believed that Munsey had a right to compensation for his lost profits after being unlawfully removed from his mining claim by Clough. Furthermore, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "possession," arguing it should include constructive possession where one exercises control over an area even if not physically present there all times.