In the case of Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a mining company had to pay royalties on minerals extracted from land that it owned, but which were located beneath another person's property. The court ruled in favor of Sunshine Mining Co., stating that they did not have to pay royalties because they held both surface and mineral rights for their own land, despite part of their mine extending under adjacent property. This decision was based on an interpretation of "apex law," a principle in U.S mining law which allows miners who own the apex (or top) of a mineral vein to follow and extract it even if it extends into someone else's property below ground level.

In the dissenting opinion for TREINIES v. SUNSHINE MINING CO., Justice Black argued that Idaho's law, which allowed escheat of unclaimed dividends to the state after a certain period, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Contract Clause or Due Process Clause. He contended that states have inherent power to protect property within their borders and ensure its productive use by declaring it abandoned if left unclaimed for an extended time. This power is not limited by any contractual obligations between private parties nor does it deprive anyone of property without due process since owners can reclaim their assets before they are declared abandoned. Furthermore, he noted that this case involved intangible personal property (corporate stock dividends), which has no physical existence and thus cannot be physically located in any particular place; therefore, it should fall under jurisdiction where corporation resides i.e., Idaho in this case.