In the case of Ripley v. United States in 1910, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land patents and mining claims. The plaintiff, Ripley, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under a patent issued by the U.S government. However, these lands were already occupied by miners who had staked their claims before Ripley received his patent. The court held that even though Ripley's patent gave him legal title to the land, it did not invalidate prior existing rights of miners who had made valuable discoveries and improvements on those lands as per mining laws at that time. Therefore, despite having legal title through his patent from the government for unclaimed public lands or mineral deposits therein which no one else has previously discovered or developed; if someone else has already been working there under valid claim according to established law then they have superior right over such minerally rich areas within said property boundaries regardless of any subsequent patents granted thereafter.

In the dissenting opinion for Ripley v. United States, 1910, 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 contract between two parties should not be invalidated simply because one party later decides it is disadvantageous to them. In this case, he believed that Mr. Ripley had entered into a valid contract with the government when he agreed to pay an increased price for timberland in exchange for its release from reservation status by President Cleveland’s proclamation; thus, his subsequent claim seeking restitution on grounds of overpayment should have been dismissed outrightly as per contractual obligations rather than being entertained by courts leading to unjust enrichment at taxpayer expense.