In the case of Richmond Mining Company v. Rose & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a mining company had the right to mine on a tract of land that was owned by a group of individuals. The mining company had obtained a lease from the owners of the land, but the owners had subsequently sold the land to a third party. The mining company argued that the lease was still valid, while the third party argued that the lease was no longer valid because the land had been sold. The Supreme Court held that the lease was still valid, and that the mining company had the right to mine on the land. The Court reasoned that the lease was a contract between the mining company and the original owners of the land, and that the sale of the land did not invalidate the contract. The Court also held that the mining company had the right to continue mining on the land, as long as it complied with the terms of the lease. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the mining company had the right to mine on the land, and that the lease was still valid despite the sale of the land. The Court's decision established that contracts between parties remain valid even if the property is sold to a third party.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Richmond Mining Company v. Rose & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had not intended to grant exclusive rights to mining companies when it passed a law granting them certain privileges and immunities. Instead, he believed that Congress had only meant to protect miners from interference by state or local governments while they were engaged in their work on public lands. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that the majority's interpretation of this law would lead to an absurd result: if a mining company held exclusive rights over all minerals found on public land within its boundaries, then no other miner could legally mine for those minerals without permission from the company - even though they were located on public land open for exploration by anyone with proper authorization from federal authorities. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that Congress did not intend such an outcome when passing this legislation and thus urged reversal of the majority opinion so as to prevent any further confusion regarding mineral rights on public lands going forward.