In the case of Remington Paper Company v. Watson in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and contracts. The Remington Paper Company had entered into an agreement with Watson to purchase land that contained valuable timber resources. However, before finalizing the transaction, Watson sold some of these resources to another party without informing or obtaining consent from Remington Paper Company. Upon discovering this action, Remington sued for breach of contract and sought compensation for their losses. The Supreme Court sided with Remington, ruling that under common law principles governing real estate transactions (specifically "covenants running with the land"), once a buyer enters into a binding agreement to purchase property they acquire equitable interest in it - including its natural resources - even if legal title has not yet been transferred formally through deed execution. Therefore, any extraction or sale of those resources by seller without buyer's knowledge or consent constitutes breach of contract entitling buyer to damages equivalent to value lost due such actions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Remington Paper Company v. Watson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The dissent contended that a mortgagee who has taken possession should be considered as having done so under every part of the mortgage, not just those parts which are beneficial to him. They further asserted that if a mortgagor is allowed to retain possession until default, he should also bear any losses incurred during this period, rather than passing them onto the mortgagee upon taking possession after default occurs. This view maintains that it would be unjust for a party enjoying benefits from property ownership to avoid corresponding liabilities or burdens associated with such ownership.