In the case of Ryan v. Hard, 1891, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining claims in Idaho. The plaintiff, Ryan, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his mining claim by the defendant, Hard. He sought to recover possession and damages for ore removed from the mine by Hard during his alleged unlawful possession. The court found that both parties had made improvements on their respective portions of land but did not have legal title to them at those times due to non-compliance with federal law regarding annual labor requirements on such claims. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hard stating that even though neither party complied fully with federal laws concerning maintaining their claims through annual labor requirements; since they were both aware and accepting each other's occupancy and work done on these lands without protest or interruption for several years - it constituted as mutual recognition under "the doctrine of practical location". This ruling established an important precedent about how disputes over mining rights should be resolved when there is ambiguity or non-compliance with formal procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Ryan v. Hard, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute regarding land patents and argued that the case should have been decided in favor of Ryan. He believed that once a patent had been issued by the government, it could not be revoked or annulled unless there was evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, he saw no such evidence to justify annulling Ryan's patent. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were irregularities in how Ryan obtained his title to the land from its original owner (Hard), those issues should have been addressed through private litigation rather than involving federal courts and agencies. He also criticized what he viewed as an overly broad application of equity jurisdiction by lower courts which allowed them to interfere with property rights based on mere suspicion or doubt about their validity.