The U.S. Supreme Court case Seeburger v. Wright and Lawther Oil and Lead Manufacturing Company in 1894 revolved around a dispute over property rights, specifically the right to mine lead on certain lands in Iowa. The plaintiff, Seeburger, claimed that he had purchased land from the defendant's company with an understanding that it included mineral rights for mining lead ore beneath the surface of his property. However, when he attempted to exercise these rights by digging for lead ore under his land, he was stopped by the defendants who asserted they retained ownership of all minerals found underneath despite selling him the surface rights. Seeburger sued them arguing breach of contract while defendants contended their deed explicitly excluded mineral rights from sale thus retaining those themselves. The court ruled in favor of Seeburger stating that unless expressly stated otherwise within a deed or agreement at time of purchase (which wasn't done here), any conveyance or sale includes both surface and subsurface/mineral rights as per common law principles governing real estate transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Seeberger v. Wright and Lawther Oil and Lead Manufacturing Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret the law regarding patent rights. The dissenting justices believed that a patented invention should not be considered public property unless it has been abandoned by its inventor, which they did not believe had occurred in this case. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "abandonment" of a patent right, arguing that mere non-use or disuse does not necessarily equate to abandonment. Furthermore, they contended that even if there were evidence suggesting abandonment, such decisions should ultimately rest with juries rather than judges. Thus, they felt that the court overstepped its bounds by making determinations on factual matters typically reserved for jury consideration.