In the Sweeney v. Carter Oil Company case of 1905, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over oil and gas rights in Kansas. The plaintiff, Sweeney, had leased his land to an oil company for exploration and extraction purposes but later sold it to another party while retaining half of the mineral rights. When he discovered that there was still unextracted oil on his former property, he sued Carter Oil Company (the lessee) for not fully exploiting these resources during their lease period. The court ruled against Sweeney stating that under common law principles governing such leases; a lessee is not obligated to exhaust all possible resources from a property unless explicitly stated in their contract. It further clarified that any implied covenant between lessor and lessee does not extend beyond reasonable diligence in exploration and production activities rather than complete exhaustion of resources. This ruling set important precedents regarding interpretation of contracts related to natural resource exploitation by clarifying obligations between parties involved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sweeney v. Carter Oil Company argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of property rights and contract law. The dissenters believed that an oil lease, such as the one at issue in this case, should be considered a sale rather than merely a rental agreement. They contended that by treating it as a mere lease, the court had effectively allowed for unjust enrichment on part of Carter Oil Company at expense of Mr. Sweeney who had invested significantly into drilling operations under belief he held more substantial rights to land and its resources. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation regarding implied covenants within oil leases; arguing instead these should not be read into contracts unless explicitly stated or absolutely necessary to make contract effective - which they did not believe was situation here.