In the case of Wise v. Mills in 1910, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Wise, claimed that he had purchased land from Mills under an agreement which included all minerals found on the property. However, when oil was discovered on this land years later, Mills argued that he still retained ownership of these resources as they were not explicitly mentioned in their original contract. The court ruled in favor of Wise stating that unless specifically excluded by terms within a deed or contract for sale of real estate property; it is presumed to include everything above and below ground including any valuable minerals such as oil or gas present thereon at time of sale.

In the dissenting opinion for Wise v. Mills, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied an injunction against a railroad company which was allegedly causing damage to private property due to smoke and cinders from its locomotives. The main point of contention was whether or not this constituted as a 'nuisance'. While acknowledging that railroads are necessary for public convenience, he argued they should not be allowed to cause substantial injury without providing compensation. He believed it was unjustifiable for courts to deny protection on grounds of public interest when personal rights were being violated by corporations operating under state authority. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on English cases where conditions differed significantly from those in America; instead emphasizing American jurisprudence which held corporations accountable for damages caused by their operations even if they served public interests.