The U.S. Supreme Court case St. Louis Mining and Milling Company of Montana v. Montana Mining Company, Limited in 1903 revolved around a dispute over mining rights in the Little Ben Mine located in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. The plaintiff, St. Louis Mining and Milling Co., claimed that it had acquired ownership of the mine through adverse possession - a doctrine allowing someone to acquire property by using it openly for an extended period without protest from the original owner - while defendant Montana Mining Co., argued that they were still rightful owners as they held legal title to the land since 1882. The court ruled against St.Louis Mining & Milling Co., stating that their claim was invalid because there was no evidence showing continuous use or occupancy for five years (the statutory requirement) before filing suit; hence failing to meet requirements necessary for claiming adverse possession under state law. Furthermore, even if such evidence existed, their claim would be void due to non-compliance with Section 2324 of Revised Statutes which required annual labor worth $100 on each mining claim or equivalent improvements made every year after location until patent is issued; failure results forfeiture back to government who then can grant new valid claims upon discovery of mineral deposits therein.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Louis Mining and Milling Company of Montana v. Montana Mining Company, Limited, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider the rights and interests of both parties involved in this mining dispute. The dissent disagreed with how evidence was interpreted by the court, arguing that there were significant ambiguities which should have been resolved in favor of St. Louis Mining and Milling Company due to their prior possession and use of disputed property under a valid patent from United States government. They also contended that certain legal principles applied by majority were not appropriate or relevant for this case involving mineral lands where unique rules often apply regarding discovery, development rights etc., unlike ordinary land disputes.