In the case of Wetmore v. Rymer (1897), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining claims in California. The plaintiff, Wetmore, claimed that he had purchased an interest in certain mining properties from one of the defendants and sought to compel them to recognize his rights as part owner. However, the defendants argued that they were not aware of any such sale or transfer of ownership interests and thus refused to acknowledge Wetmore's claim. After reviewing all evidence presented by both parties, including deeds and other documents related to property transactions, the court ruled in favor of Rymer and others (the defendants). The court found no sufficient proof supporting Wetmore’s allegations about purchasing an interest in those mines; hence it denied recognizing him as a co-owner.

In the dissenting opinion for Wetmore v. Rymer, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of equity jurisprudence. He contended that it was not within the power of a court to compel one joint owner to purchase another's interest in property at an arbitrary price set by commissioners appointed by the court itself. Instead, he believed such matters should be settled through negotiation between parties or via sale of property and division of proceeds if agreement could not be reached. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse where courts might force sales under conditions unfavorable to one party but beneficial to another with more influence over proceedings.