In the case of Sena v. American Turquoise Company, 1910, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a mining claim in New Mexico by an individual named Sena was valid or not. The American Turquoise Company had disputed this claim and argued that they were the rightful owners of the mine due to their prior possession and improvements made on it. The court ruled in favor of American Turquoise Company stating that under federal law, particularly Revised Statutes section 2324 which governs mining claims, mere discovery does not establish ownership rights over a mineral deposit unless followed by appropriate location procedures such as marking boundaries and recording claims within specified time limits. In this case, although Sena discovered turquoise deposits first but failed to follow these procedures while American Turquoise company did so diligently thereby establishing its superior right over the mine.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sena v. American Turquoise Company argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider Spanish law, which was applicable at the time when New Mexico was a territory under Spain. The dissent contended that according to Spanish law, mineral rights were not automatically included with land grants unless explicitly stated. Therefore, it should not be assumed that Sena had any claim over the turquoise mines on her property as they were never specifically granted to her. Furthermore, even if she did have some right over them initially, she lost these rights when she sold off parts of her land without reserving any mineral rights for herself. Thus, by failing to reserve these rights and then attempting to assert them later against a third party who purchased the mine from another buyer in good faith is unjust and contrary both under Spanish and common law principles.