In the case of Plymouth Gold Mining Company v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company had the right to divert water from the Plymouth Gold Mining Company’s mining operations. The Plymouth Gold Mining Company argued that the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company had no right to divert the water, as it was their property and the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company had no right to take it without their permission. The Supreme Court held that the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company had the right to divert the water, as it was necessary for the public good. The Court reasoned that the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company had the right to take the water for the purpose of providing water to the public, and that the Plymouth Gold Mining Company had no right to prevent the diversion of the water. The Court also held that the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company was not liable for any damages caused by the diversion of the water. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company had the right to divert the water from the Plymouth Gold Mining Company’s mining operations, as it was necessary for the public good. The Court also held that the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company was not liable for any damages caused by the diversion of the water.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Plymouth Gold Mining Company v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, arguing that the majority had erred in their decision to deny a right of way for an aqueduct across land owned by the defendant. He argued that California law provided for such easements and should be respected as valid under federal law. Furthermore, he noted that since this was a case involving private property rights, it was important to consider both parties' interests when making a ruling; however, he felt that the majority's decision did not adequately take into account all relevant factors and instead only considered one side of the issue. Justice Field concluded his dissent by emphasizing how essential it is to protect private property rights from arbitrary government interference or unjustified taking without due process of law.