In the case of North Shore Boom and Driving Company v. Nicomen Boom Company, 1908, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over timber rights in British Columbia between two American companies. The plaintiff, North Shore Boom and Driving Co., claimed that it had exclusive rights to all logs cut or found on certain lands under its lease from the Canadian government. However, defendant Nicomen Boom Co., argued that they also held logging rights granted by individual landowners within those same territories. The court ruled in favor of Nicomen stating that while North Shore's lease did grant them broad logging privileges, it did not provide an absolute monopoly over all timber within their leased territory. Therefore, private contracts made by other parties (like Nicomen) for specific parcels of land were still valid despite overlapping with North Shore's broader governmental lease.

In the dissenting opinion for North Shore Boom and Driving Company v. Nicomen Boom Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Washington state law regulating log driving on navigable rivers infringed upon federal authority over interstate commerce. The dissenting justices contended that while states have power to regulate their internal affairs, they should not be allowed to interfere with matters of national concern such as navigation on public waterways. They believed this case represented an unlawful extension of state power into a domain reserved for Congress by the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions related to similar issues and felt those cases actually supported their view that regulation of navigation is exclusively within federal jurisdiction.