In the case of Southwestern Coal Company v. McBride in 1901, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights. The plaintiff, Southwestern Coal Company, claimed that it had purchased land from an individual who was given title to the property by Congress under a federal law granting lands for railroad construction purposes. However, this individual had already sold his mining rights to another party before selling the surface rights to Southwestern Coal Co., which led to conflict over who held rightful claim over these resources. The defendant, McBride argued that he owned mineral rights due to prior purchase from original grantee while Southwest asserted its right based on subsequent purchase of surface estate with no reservation of minerals mentioned in deed. The court found in favor of McBride stating that when Congress grants lands without any express or implied reservation as regards minerals therein contained; such grant conveys both surface and mineral estates unless there is clear intent otherwise shown by parties involved at time of transaction. Therefore,the decision established important precedent regarding interpretation of federal laws related with public land grants and clarified legal principles concerning split-estate scenarios where different parties own surface versus subsurface interests within same tract.

The dissenting opinion in the Southwestern Coal Company v. McBride case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and equity. The dissenters believed that the plaintiff, who had been injured while working for the coal company, should not have been allowed to recover damages because he knowingly assumed risk associated with his job. They maintained that an employee assumes all ordinary risks of his employment when accepting a job offer, including those arising from negligence on part of fellow servants or defects in machinery or appliances provided by employer unless it can be shown employer knew about such dangers and failed to warn employees. Furthermore, they contended that there was no evidence showing defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care in providing safe tools and appliances for workmen which could justify awarding damages to plaintiff.