The Elkus v. Madson Steele Company case in 1909 involved a dispute over the bankruptcy of the Madson Steele Company. The petitioner, Elkus, was a creditor who claimed that he had not been properly notified about the bankruptcy proceedings and therefore his rights were violated under due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that as a result, any discharge of debt granted to Madson Steele by the court should be deemed invalid with respect to his claim. However, after examining all relevant facts and legal principles applicable at that time, including those related to notice requirements in bankruptcy cases and constitutional protections for creditors' rights under due process clause, it was determined by Supreme Court justices that proper notification procedures had indeed been followed during these proceedings. Therefore they ruled against Elkus's petition on grounds that no violation occurred regarding his right to due process.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Elkus v. Madson Steele Company, 1909, argued that the petitioner should not be held liable for debts incurred by a company he was no longer involved with at the time of bankruptcy. The justice emphasized that Elkus had resigned from his position and sold his shares prior to the company's financial downfall. Therefore, it was unjust to hold him responsible for its debts as he did not have any control over or benefit from its operations during this period. Furthermore, they contended that there were other shareholders who remained involved with the company and benefited financially even as it approached bankruptcy; these individuals should bear responsibility instead of someone who had severed ties with the firm before its collapse.